Conciseness

Lean and dense throughout: every line carries instructions or non-obvious judgment ("Never kill by process name; kill what you started", "a cleanup that eats the proof fails this step") and nothing explains concepts Claude already knows. Not 4 because there is no identifiable over-explanation to trim — brief rationale clauses all inform decisions.

Actionability

Highly actionable for an instruction-only generator skill: exact paths (`.cursor/skills/verify-<app>/SKILL.md`, `features/README.md`), six named sections with required content, the exact four H2 titles, generic drive recipes (browser/CDP, tmux/PTY, plain HTTP), and a worked example bundle to follow. Not 5 because no inline sample of the generated output is shown and a few steps (e.g., what a minimal Doctor check looks like) remain abstract, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced phases (interview → generate → seed → prove → maintenance) with explicit validation and feedback loops: "Fix what fails", "After cleanup, confirm the evidence still exists at the named location", and "run the generated cleanup after every failed iteration". The destructive-operation cap does not apply since verification/validation is the core of step 4.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized numbered sections at ~36 lines, with a single one-level-deep reference (`references/feature-map-example/`) that is clearly signaled by link, verified to exist, and whose structure (README index plus one file per feature with the named H2s) matches exactly what the body describes.

Specificity

Names several concrete actions — "Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does" and "prove UI/CLI/service behavior" — with only minor coverage gaps. It falls short of 5 because it does not enumerate what the generated skill actually covers (launch, drive, evidence, cleanup), and exceeds 3 because it lists more than 1-2 specific actions with concrete scope ("any language, framework, or platform").

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does — any language, framework, or platform") and when ("Use for /create-verification-skill, 'make a control skill for this repo', or when a project has no scripted way to prove UI/CLI/service behavior") with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with concrete triggers: the slash command "/create-verification-skill", the natural quoted phrase "make a control skill for this repo", and the condition "no scripted way to prove UI/CLI/service behavior". Not 5 because common user synonyms such as "verify the app", "e2e", "smoke test", or "drive the app" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — generating project-local verification/control skills — anchored by a distinct slash-command trigger and specific phrases like "control skill". Not 5 because "prove UI/CLI/service behavior" carries minor overlap risk with general testing or e2e-related skills.