Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the router-return rule is stated three times ("If fresh signal collection is genuinely needed, return control to `avoid-ai-writing-router`", workflow step 4 "Do not call the detector directly", and Stop conditions "return control to the router rather than opening a direct Skill loop"), and "This keeps interpretation terminal in the Skill graph and prevents reviewer-detector cycles" is design commentary rather than instruction.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout: an explicit evidence taxonomy ("deterministic detector hits, model-only editorial observations, or contextual facts"), named confounders ("genre, second-language writing, technical register, deadline pressure"), and specific probative evidence types ("source history, drafts, revision logs"). Minor gap: no worked example of how to phrase an interpretation or structure the output.

Workflow Clarity

The six numbered steps are clearly sequenced with explicit conditionals ("If an adequate audit is missing and the user wants one, return control to the router") and a defined stop condition. Not a 5 because there is no checkpoint validating that the evidence classification in step 1 is complete before interpretation proceeds, and the router-mediated feedback loop is described rather than embedded as an explicit verify-and-retry step.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and the body correctly stays an overview, but it delegates its core authority to files that are not present: `../avoid-ai-writing/SKILL.md`, `../avoid-ai-writing-router/references/handoff-contract.md`, `skill-graph.json`, and `agency-role-lenses.md` do not exist anywhere in the bundle or workspace. The disclosure chain is clearly signaled but cannot actually be followed.

Specificity

The description names the domain (AI-writing detector flags, false positives, authorship) and one or two implied actions ("a careful interpretation of possible false positives", "asks what AI-writing flags mean"), but never declaratively lists what the skill does. Not a 4 because capabilities are only embedded in trigger phrasing rather than stated as specific actions.

Completeness

The "when" is explicit and thorough ("Use when a user asks what AI-writing flags mean, whether detector output proves AI authorship..."), but the "what" is never stated — the description is entirely a trigger clause, with the skill's interpretive function only weakly implied by it. This mirrors the 3 anchor's one-side-missing structure; it does not reach 4, which requires both present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural coverage: "AI-writing flags", "detector output", "proves AI authorship", "false positives", and the decision contexts "academic, hiring, publication, disciplinary" are phrases users would actually say. Missing common variations like "AI detector", "AI-generated text", or "AI checker", so it falls short of the 5 anchor's synonym and extension coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers: interpreting detector output and false-positive risk for consequential decisions is well separated from detection, rewriting, or generation skills, and phrases like "whether detector output proves AI authorship" would not naturally trigger a sibling skill. Minimal conflict risk.