Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — details like "One transcript line can be a megabyte" and "gh cannot attach files" are non-obvious and earn their tokens. It falls short of anchor 5 only because the bundle-gating and no-diagnosis rules are repeated across the workflow steps, Hard Rules, and Red Flags tables, which is minor trimmable redundancy.

Actionability

The orchestration layer is concrete — verified absolute paths, `~/.superpowers/diagnosing-superpowers/<session-id>/`, named redaction levels, `zip -r` or `tar -czf`, "repeating both until the audit returns CLEAN" — but most executable detail (case/report/issue templates, all eleven analyst and scrub prompts) lives in files absent from the bundle, and report sections §7 and §9 are referenced without their defining template. This matches anchor 3's 'concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' rather than 4's 'minor gaps'.

Workflow Clarity

Seven numbered steps with explicit conditional gates ("Steps 5–7 run only on their stated condition"), validation checkpoints ("Discard any returned finding without path:line", approval gates before archiving or filing), and a genuine feedback loop (scrub → audit → repeat until CLEAN). The workflow is read-only on session files, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply; this matches anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The four references that do exist (session-discovery, context-safety, github-issues, redaction-policy) are small and one level deep, but 15 of the 19 paths the body cites — all of `templates/` and all of `prompts/` — are missing from the bundle, and the existing `references/redaction-policy.md` is never linked from the body. Scored against the actual bundle per the guidelines, navigation to the core workflow materials is broken, which is below anchor 3's 'could be better organized' but above anchor 1 since what exists is well-signaled and flat.

Specificity

The domain is concretely named ("a superpowers session went wrong") with two named deliverables ("wants to know why", "wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers"), but the skill's own actions (reading transcripts, producing evidence-cited reports) are never explicitly stated, matching anchor 3 rather than 4's 'several specific actions'. It is well above anchor 2's bare-domain examples because the symptom list and session-identification details are concrete.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicitly and richly answered ("Use when a superpowers session went wrong… for the current session or a past one identified by id or path"), and a 'what' is present via the two named goals, but the skill's own behavior is embedded in the user's wants rather than clearly stated, so it falls just short of anchor 5's 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when'. It is clearly above anchor 3, where 'when' would be missing or weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

The description quotes the natural phrases users would actually say — "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing", "a skill that didn't fire", "repeated work", "ignored plans", "stumbles" — giving comprehensive coverage including synonym variations, which matches the anchor-5 example's breadth.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is unambiguous — "superpowers session", "bug report for the superpowers maintainers", "identified by id or path", "on any harness" — so triggers are distinct and overlap risk with other skills is minimal despite the generic-sounding complaint phrases, matching anchor 5.