Conciseness

Mostly efficient — dense tables and checklists rather than conceptual padding — but includes unnecessary material Claude already knows ('Very, really, extremely... (weak intensifiers)'; 'Passive voice (switch to active)'; 'Vary sentence length (mix short and long)') and duplicated content: the 'Common Problems & Fixes' entries restate sweeps 3-5 ('No Proof' ≈ Sweep 4, 'Generic Claims' ≈ Sweep 5, 'Wall of Features' ≈ Sweep 3). Anchor 3 fits best: over-explanation and redundancy exceed the 'minor instances' of anchor 4 but are far from anchor 2's pervasive padding.

Actionability

Fully concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: exact rules ('Max 3 conjunctions per sentence,' 'no more than 25 words (usually),' 'one fragment and one list of three per section'), an AI-tell table with Pattern/Example/Fix columns, a vague-to-specific replacement table, a named convention for missing facts ('mark [NEED: ...] instead of inventing one'), and scored thresholds ('iterate until all personas score 7+, with an average of 8+'). Matches anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The process is clearly sequenced — diagnose mode A/B/C before editing ('A point edit skips the Seven Sweeps'), run sweeps 1-7 in order, run the AI-tell check 'on every edit, after the sweeps,' then the expert panel and the final checklist in references/checklist.md — with explicit feedback loops at every checkpoint ('After each sweep, loop back to check previous sweeps aren't compromised'; 'Repeat until clean - Continue until a full sweep finds no new issues'). Matches anchor 5: clear sequence, explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

All three bundle files (checklist.md, content-refresh.md, plain-english-alternatives.md) exist, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled with content descriptions in the References section. However, the ~490-line body inlines content that could live in references — the Quick-Pass word/sentence/paragraph checks, the Expert Panel rosters, and the duplicated Common Problems section — fitting anchor 4 (good structure, most content appropriately placed, minor organization gaps) rather than anchor 5's lean overview split.

Specificity

Names the domain ('edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content') and several concrete behaviors ('Every edit removes AI tells such as "it's not X, it's Y" reveals, "no X, no Y, no Z" lists, and sentences that trail into extra comma clauses'; 'A request to fix one line gets a point edit that changes only that line'). Matches anchor 4 — several specific actions with minor gaps — rather than anchor 5, whose comprehensive action enumeration this doesn't quite reach given the action coverage is thinner relative to the trigger volume.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ('improve existing marketing copy,' removes named AI-tell patterns, point edits) and when ('Use this when the user already has copy and wants it improved or refreshed rather than rewritten from scratch,' plus an extensive trigger list), and adds boundary routing ('For writing new copy, see copywriting'). Matches anchor 5: both what and when explicit with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural phrasing users would actually say, including synonyms and slang: 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'tighten this up,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'content audit,' 'this sounds like AI,' 'AI slop,' 'de-slop this,' 'make it sound human.' This matches anchor 5's comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms; anchor 4 ('a few natural terms missing') understates the coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The editing-vs-writing boundary with 'copywriting' is explicitly drawn ('rather than rewritten from scratch'), and most triggers are copy-specific. However, generic phrases like 'make this better,' 'polish this,' and 'update this page' carry minor overlap risk with general writing/editing skills, fitting anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk) rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.