Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the model-only/no-false-claim guard is repeated three times ('Never claim it ran unless the current host executed it', 'Report this review as model-only rather than claiming the deterministic validator performed it', 'Do not claim the deterministic validator checked semantic representation details that it does not implement') and several lawyerly caveat sentences could be trimmed — fitting 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor at 5.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: a copy-paste CLI command ('node scripts/validate.js --residual-policy warn before.md after.md'), a working require() example against the real bundled script, concrete statuses (PASS/REVIEW/FAIL), named warning codes (number-added, number-missing, residual-grew), and specific envelope fields (execution_evidence.verifier, verification_summary.status, pass.index, pass.max).

Workflow Clarity

The skill is itself a validation checkpoint: incoming contract (require both versions or return to router), deterministic path, separate semantic review, explicit PASS/REVIEW/FAIL decision rules with repair-owner routing by source kind, and a bounded feedback loop ('At most one repair re-entry… After repair, verify once more. If that check still fails, stop and report'). Sequence and validation checkpoints are explicit throughout.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well sectioned (Connection contract, deterministic path, protected constraints, Result handling, Repair-loop limit, Output) and the heavy validator logic is correctly delegated to the bundled scripts/validate.js and patterns.js, both present. It falls short of 5 because four load-bearing references (../avoid-ai-writing/SKILL.md, ../avoid-ai-writing-router/references/handoff-contract.md, skill-graph.json, agency-role-lenses.md) point to sibling skills outside this bundle, so the envelope and routing semantics they define are not available for standalone navigation.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete check actions — 'asks whether a rewrite preserved protected content' and 'a deterministic check for code, frontmatter, quotes, tables, links, paths, numbers, headings, and residual AI-pattern regressions' — with comprehensive coverage of the check categories and no identifiable gap, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor at 4.

Completeness

The 'Use when…' clause is explicit with three concrete trigger scenarios and the what ('deterministic check for…') is stated, but the capability is phrased only as what the user wants ('wants a deterministic check') rather than a leading third-person statement of what the skill does, so it sits between anchors 4 and 5 rather than clearly matching the explicit what-and-when anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'provides an original and rewritten version', 'rewrite preserved protected content', and 'quotes, tables, numbers, headings' give good keyword coverage, but common synonyms ('edit', 'before/after', 'did it change') and file extensions are missing, so it falls short of the comprehensive-synonyms anchor at 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Original and rewritten version', 'preserved protected content', and 'residual AI-pattern regressions' carve a clear before/after preservation-verification niche with distinct triggers and minimal risk of firing for the wrong skill.