Conciseness

The body is terse, table-driven, and telegraphic ("Two identical failures mean change approach, not retry. A third identical attempt is a defect."), with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Two minor instances that could be trimmed: the guard meta-note "It is not a security boundary: code that imports the raw entry (`resolveOmowrightEntry()`) is not guarded..." and the emphasis restatement "A Chrome that is merely installed is not their browser" following "the browser the user actually uses". Anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances of over-explanation) fits better than anchor 5, whose "every token earns its place" is slightly undercut by those passages.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: `node "<skill-root>/scripts/browser-doctor.mjs" --json`, a complete session loop with real method calls (`connectBrowserSkill`, `bskSnapshot`, `click`, `fill`, `press`, `screenshot`, `stop()` in a `finally`), `session.requestHelp({ prompt, targets, timeoutMs })`, and install commands. The doctor state table maps every output (`ready`, `no-cli`, `choose-browser`, `no-browser-support`) to an exact next command. Copy-paste ready; matches anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequence: Step 0 (engine gate keyed on `OMO_BROWSER_ENGINE`) → Step 1 (load + validate via browser-doctor, with a recovery loop: "relay it verbatim, wait, re-run the doctor") → the loop with a numbered rules checklist ("Read before every action", "Navigation and large DOM changes stale every ref") and mandatory `stop()` cleanup. Explicit validation step plus feedback loops for error recovery; anchor 5's checklist-and-recovery pattern matches.

Progressive Disclosure

All referenced files exist (references/commands.md, install.md, remote.md, owned-engine/README.md, recipes/1password.md) and the "Where the rest lives" table labels each with its content, so navigation is clear. However, the owned-engine subtree (README.md → ladder.md, network.md, frames-and-humans.md) makes the reference hierarchy two levels deep, short of anchor 5's "one-level-deep references"; anchor 4's "minor organization gaps" is the best fit, and it is well above anchor 3 since nothing is buried or unlabeled.

Specificity

Quotes: "Drives a real browser", "forms and clicks", "screenshots, web QA, extension popups", "a human handoff for login, CAPTCHA or OTP", "a browser you own for scraping, bot-scored targets, network capture and QA traces" — multiple specific concrete capabilities with comprehensive coverage of the browser-task domain. Not anchor 4: no "minor gaps in coverage" — every major capability category (navigation, forms, screenshots, QA, human handoff, scraping, network capture) is explicitly named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is "Drives a real browser through the omowright library... sites the user is already signed into, forms and clicks... network capture and QA traces", and the "when" is "Use for any interactive browser task; not for a plain search or an unblocked static fetch" — an explicit trigger clause that even adds a negative boundary the anchor-5 example lacks. Not anchor 4, since the "when" clause is fully explicit, not merely "could be more specific".

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are present: "browser", "forms and clicks", "screenshots", "login, CAPTCHA or OTP", "scraping", "web QA", "JS-rendered pages". But "js eval kernel", "bot-scored targets", and "QA traces" are technical jargon a user would never say, and common phrasings like "navigate to a page", "open a website", or "automate" are missing. Fits anchor 4 (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than anchor 5 (comprehensive coverage including synonyms), since the natural-synonym coverage is good but not exhaustive.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (interactive, signed-in browser automation through a named library) with an explicit exclusion — "not for a plain search or an unblocked static fetch" — that separates it from plain-fetch/search skills. Distinct triggers ("login, CAPTCHA or OTP", "extension popups", "bot-scored targets") carry minimal conflict risk; matches anchor 5's "clear niche with distinct triggers".