Conciseness

The ~30-line body is lean and efficient with zero padding: no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, and every sentence is a directive ("A class counts once it has happened twice", "Exceptions go on the offending line with a reason, an expiry date, and a human's approval"). Every token earns its place.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete and directive — exact sources to read, per-level tactics ("Hide internals so the wrong import fails", "fail only when a change adds more"), a proof protocol, CI parity, and a reply contract — but there are no worked examples (e.g., a sample rule-table row or one demonstrated "prove the check fails on a real past mistake" cycle), leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear (find classes → ordered fix ladder → fix and prove → rule table → reply) with explicit validation ("Prove each new check fails on a real past mistake. Run the same command locally and in CI") and a real feedback loop ("If the rule was already there and nothing enforces it, that's a repeat, so fix it at the highest level in the same change"). Validation steps are present, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and organizes its content into well-labeled sections (Find the mistake classes, Fix each class, Fix and prove, Keep the rule table), which per the simple-skill guideline merits a 5.

Specificity

The description enumerates a concrete escalation ladder ("then types, then a lint whose error names the fix, then a test, and write docs last") plus a proof requirement ("Prove each check fails on a real past mistake"), but phrases like "make each one impossible" stay abstract and the rule-table maintenance duty is missing, leaving minor coverage gaps rather than comprehensive coverage.

Completeness

Both parts are present: a clear multi-part "what" and an explicit "Use for /correct" trigger. However, the when-clause is minimal — natural trigger conditions are only weakly implied by "Repeat this each time the operator corrects you" — matching the anchor where "when" could be more explicit or specific.

Trigger Term Quality

It uses relevant keywords ("mistakes agents keep repeating", "operator corrects you") but the when-clause contributes only the command token "Use for /correct", omitting natural variations users would say ("same error", "recurring", "keeps correcting me"), so common synonyms are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"mistakes agents keep repeating in this repo", "the operator corrects you", and "Use for /correct" carve a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk against generic fix or review skills.