Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — commands, pass criteria, and failure catalogs with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — but a few passages could be trimmed: the "dev binary untouched" point is made in the intro, Phase 2, Phase 5, and Key behaviors, and the history blockquotes (env-var pipe gotcha, "do not re-assert the old criteria") are longer than needed. Version-sensitive references ("From 0.12.0…", "the 0.7.1 test") sit outside any old-patterns section. Fits anchor 4 (minor over-explanation) rather than 5, and is clearly above 3.

Actionability

Every phase has copy-paste-ready commands: per-path install snippets, an exact executable assertion script for the env-leak test with symlink resolution (resolved_repo=$(cd "$LEAKREPO" && pwd -P)), exit-code capture, and cleanup commands including the archon-stable restore branch. Matches the anchor-5 example of fully executable guidance covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced phases with explicit validation checkpoints throughout: pre-flight prerequisite and release-existence checks, a confirmation gate before install, per-test pass criteria, continue-on-failure with a FAIL verdict, guaranteed Phase 5 cleanup, and "Common failures" sections giving error-recovery feedback loops. Matches the anchor-5 example; the destructive-operation cap does not apply because validation is explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so all content is inline in a single well-sectioned SKILL.md with clear phase headers, a Related section pointing at real repo paths, and easy linear navigation — appropriate for a sequential procedure. Minor gaps: the ~90 lines of example PASS/FAIL reports and the historical-criteria notes could live in a references file, leaving the body leaner. Fits anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps) rather than 3, whose example is noticeably worse organized.

Specificity

"Verify a released archon binary works end-to-end via a specific install path" names the domain and a precise concrete action, with the NOT-for clause bounding scope; only the enumeration of the three install paths is left to the body, a minor coverage gap. Fits anchor 4 better than 3 because the 'what' is exact rather than a generic 1-2 action listing.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ("Verify a released archon binary works end-to-end via a specific install path") and when ("Use when: cutting a new release, reproducing a user bug report on the released version, or validating that a hotfix binary actually works after a re-tag"), with concrete trigger phrases and a NOT-for clause. Matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers list natural phrases with synonyms and variations — "test the release", "smoke test the binary", "did the release binary work", "verify the curl install", "run /test-release" — plus a version-parameterized example ("test 0.3.1 via brew"). Coverage is comprehensive for this domain with no obvious missing terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The released-binary smoke-test niche is distinct and the NOT-for clause cleanly separates dev testing and the validate suite, but "Use when: cutting a new release" slightly overlaps the /release procedure skill the body references — minor overlap risk with a closely related skill, so anchor 4 rather than 5.