Conciseness

Nearly every token is operational: engine-selection tables, doctor-state tables with next actions, and copy-paste code with inline comments. It never explains concepts Claude already knows (no 'what a browser is', no library intros); even rule rationales are one clause ("It is the user's real profile; clearing it logs them out everywhere"). This fits the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor rather than the score-4 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: the loadOmowright import, `node "<skill-root>/scripts/browser-doctor.mjs" --json`, a complete attached-session try/finally block (`connectBrowserSkill`, `bskSnapshot`, `click`, `fill`, `press`, `waitForNavigation`, `screenshot`, `stop`), the `connectBuiltinBrowser()` example, and `requestHelp({ prompt, targets, timeoutMs })`. Doctor states map directly to next actions. This matches the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready' anchor, not score 4's 'minor gaps'.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (engine table → Step 1 doctor → the loop → handoff → stop) with real validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the doctor's state table ends in 'relay it verbatim, wait, re-run the doctor'; the numbered loop rules ('Read before every action', 'Navigation and large DOM changes stale every ref', 'Two identical failures mean change approach') act as a checklist; and `stop()` is mandated 'on success and on failure'. Error recovery paths (BuiltinBrowserUnavailableError codes, requestHelp outcomes) are enumerated. This is the score-5 anchor, above score 4's 'minor validation gaps'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-navigable overview with a clear 'Where the rest lives' table, and every referenced path (commands.md, install.md, remote.md, owned-engine/README.md, recipes/1password.md) plus all four scripts exist in the bundle. However, the owned-engine README is itself a hub linking three further files (ladder.md, network.md, frames-and-humans.md), making that branch a two-level reference chain, and it defers to an external authoritative skill. That is the 'good structure... minor organization gaps' of score 4 rather than the fully one-level-deep references of score 5.

Specificity

The description lists many concrete, distinct actions — "sites the user is already signed into, forms and clicks, JS-rendered pages, screenshots, web QA, extension popups, a human handoff for login, CAPTCHA or OTP, and a browser you own for scraping, bot-scored targets, network capture and QA traces" — which is comprehensive, matching the anchor 'multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'. It is above the score-4 anchor because coverage has no gaps across attached and owned engine use cases, and nothing is vague.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is the full action list after "Drives a real browser through the omowright library", and 'when' is a concrete trigger clause — "Use for any interactive browser task; not for a plain search or an unblocked static fetch" — which even adds negative boundaries. This is the score-5 anchor; score 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit than it is.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasing is thorough and includes synonyms: "browser", "login"/"signed into", "forms", "screenshots", "CAPTCHA", "OTP", "scraping", "web QA", "network capture", "extension popups". This matches the 'comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms' anchor; it is not score 4 because no common variation for interactive browser work is obviously missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (interactive browser automation) is distinct and the explicit negative triggers — "not for a plain search or an unblocked static fetch" — fence off plain fetch/search skills, and "any interactive browser task" claims exactly the right territory. Minimal conflict risk, matching the score-5 anchor rather than the 'minor overlap risk' of score 4.