Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence, explains no known concepts, and ties nearly every rule to a failure mode ("Do not fake the dimension being tested", "Do not start a preview or invent how it should feel"); a few guardrail sentences and the dense conditional prose could still be tightened, keeping it below the lean anchor 5.

Actionability

Concrete guidance is present — the exact probe "git -C <repo root> check-ignore -q .context/compound-engineering/" with the trailing-slash requirement, explicit directory patterns, and exact invocation renderings — but key execution detail (server commands, sizing, yields) is delegated to references rather than executable inline, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The scope → build → keep decisions → apply/continue sequence is clear with checkpoints (stop when no human is present, probe gitignore before resolving the root, "Do not build until authorized", report files you cannot restore); validation of the restored overlay tree is left somewhat implicit, holding it below the explicit-feedback-loop anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Verified against the actual bundle: all six references cited in the body (scoping.md, build.md, preview.md, annotation-loop.md, craft-floor.md, write-back.md) exist, are one level deep, and each is gated to the point in the flow where it is needed; scripts/light-webserver.js and the annotate assets sit behind those references, giving a clear overview with easy navigation.

Specificity

"Build a throwaway prototype to answer how something should work, feel, or read" names the domain and one concrete action, but the description does not enumerate multiple capabilities (e.g., apply decisions, hand off, run an annotation loop), matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the 'several specific actions' anchor.

Completeness

Both what ("Build a throwaway prototype to answer how something should work, feel, or read") and when ("Use when committing the wrong answer would be expensive to unravel and a cheap sketch cannot settle it") are explicit, plus explicit exclusions; the when clause is condition-based rather than concrete user trigger phrases, so it is not a 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "throwaway prototype", "how something should work, feel, or read", "a cheap sketch", and "polishing a feature that already works" give good coverage, but common synonyms a user might say (mock, mockup, spike, wireframe) are missing, so it does not reach comprehensive coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The exclusion chain "Not a rough visual probe during brainstorming, not for deciding what to build, not polishing a feature that already works, not implementing the real thing" carves out a clear niche against neighboring brainstorm/plan/implementation skills, giving minimal conflict risk.