Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but there is noticeable repetition: the allowed statuses appear in both step 1 and step 2, the "Boundaries" section restates rules from steps 1–2 ("Write more than one ADR per request", "Modify ... existing ADRs"), and the no-requalification rule is stated three times across "Qualification handoff". This fits anchor 4 ("efficient; minor instances ... that could be trimmed") rather than 5, where every token would earn its place.

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact path format `context/decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-<decision-slug>.md`, the exact allowed status set, exact result field names, and a real reference template. It falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no worked example of a returned result object (e.g., a sample `written` payload) or a filled-in ADR instance, leaving a minor gap between enumerated fields and copy-paste-ready output.

Workflow Clarity

Six numbered steps are clearly sequenced, step 5 ("Verify the record") is an explicit validation checklist covering filename, status, sections, references, and no modification of existing ADRs, and error paths (blocked / not_qualified / skipped) provide feedback loops for recovery. This matches anchor 5's "explicit validation steps; feedback loops ... checklists" rather than anchor 4, which requires only "most" checkpoints with minor gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and delegates the ADR schema to a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ("Read `references/adr-template.md` before writing. It is the sole authority for the persisted ADR schema"), which exists in the bundle and contains no further nested references. This matches anchor 5: clear overview, appropriately split content, easy navigation.

Specificity

The description names the domain (ADR records) and two concrete actions — "Record one already-qualified decision as an immutable ADR" and "reusing an equivalent active ADR when present" — but stops there. It does not reach anchor 4's "several specific actions" (e.g., no mention of path resolution, verification, or result reporting), and it is clearly above anchor 2 because the actions are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

The "what" is clear — record one qualified decision as an immutable ADR, reusing an equivalent active ADR — but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; "when present" is a conditional on reuse, not activation guidance. Per the rubric guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like "decision" and "ADR" are present, but the description never spells out "architecture decision record" or related natural phrases a user would say ("record a decision", "decision log", "supersede"). It matches anchor 3 ("some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms") rather than 4, since coverage is thin beyond the two core terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is distinct — immutable ADR recording with reuse of equivalent active ADRs — so overlap risk is minor, fitting anchor 4. It falls short of anchor 5 because "clear niche with distinct triggers" is undermined by the absence of explicit trigger phrases and by generic terms ("decision", "record") that could overlap with other decision- or documentation-recording skills.