Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence — it never explains what pytest, vitest, dbt or CI is, and nearly every sentence is an instruction or a rule. A few rationale sentences could be trimmed (e.g. "a synthetic run at an invented scale is weaker evidence than a percentile from real use", and restating counts.sh's MOVED rationale in the body when the script's header already documents it), which keeps it at anchor 4's 'minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place. It is far above anchor 3, which requires actual unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: a suite-selection table with concrete suite tags and directory paths, the exact `-m` marker mechanism, a literal docstring example (`Verifies cpt-ir-dod-manual-resolution-idempotency`), instructions to take counts from `scripts/counts.sh` rather than quote them, and copy-paste `cfs validate` commands. This matches anchor 5: specific, ready-to-run commands covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced sections (resolve → ground → choose suite → link → validate) end in explicit validation commands plus a two-direction chain-review checklist ('each DoD item has a test naming it, or an open decision with an owner'). What is missing is an explicit error-recovery loop — what to do when `cfs validate` or `validate-toc` fails — which keeps it at anchor 4 ('most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than anchor 5's feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

Against the actual bundle: the vector taxonomy is correctly split into references/vector-mapping.md and the counting denominators into scripts/counts.sh, both real files, clearly signaled and one level deep, with the body keeping only the overview-level rules. The gap is that two links point out-of-bundle to `../../../.cf-studio/config/kits/sdlc/guides/quality-vectors.md`, an unverifiable external path that adds a second hop for the definitions — anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps' rather than anchor 5's clean one-level-deep navigation.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Bind Insight tests to the requirements they prove", "a test names the DoD or flow ID it proves", "quality vectors stay on the PRD's NFRs" — but they are wrapped in dense internal jargon (DoD, FEATURE, PRD NFRs, 'canonical Studio way') that slightly obscures the concrete action, and the chain-style framing is partly abstract. This sits above anchor 3 (only 1-2 actions) but below anchor 5, whose actions are plainly concrete without a jargon barrier.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is stated concretely (tests bind to the DoD or flow ID they prove, vectors stay on PRD NFRs) and the 'when' is an explicit 'Use when' clause with four concrete trigger scenarios. This matches anchor 5 (clear 'what' AND 'when' with concrete trigger phrases), not anchor 4 where the 'when' is only weakly specific.

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when' clause carries natural workflow phrases — "choosing the suite for a check", "linking a test to its FEATURE", "checking a DoD item off", "reviewing whether a feature's requirements are proven" — that a user in this workflow would plausibly say. It misses common variations a user might utter ("write tests for a feature", "test plan", "coverage", "traceability"), so it does not reach anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage, but is clearly above anchor 3's partial keyword set.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — Studio/Insight test-to-requirement binding — with distinct triggers (DoD items, FEATURE linking, quality vectors) unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. However, "choosing the suite for a check" and "reviewing whether a feature's requirements are proven" could overlap with a generic test-writing or test-review skill, so anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' fits better than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.