Conciseness

The body is lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but "What This Skill Does" partially duplicates the later Assignment Rules and Review sections, and "Tips" reiterates Assignment Rules (e.g., "The smaller the owned file set, the better" vs. "Give ownership boundaries"). Minor trimmable redundancy fits anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5.

Actionability

The skill provides copy-paste-ready artifacts: a complete Agent Brief Template, a literal Recovery Prompt, a priority-ordered Review Checklist, and a worked example with concrete file paths and executable commands ("npm test -- auth", "npm run lint"). Fully executable guidance covering the common cases, matching anchor 5; as an instruction-only skill, the absence of code is not penalized.

Workflow Clarity

"What This Skill Does" lays out a clear 6-step sequence ending in required validation before delivery ("Requires validation commands or manual checks before final delivery"), the Review Checklist is explicitly ordered by priority, and there is a feedback loop for error recovery ("If the agent drifted, stop new edits and ask it to map each change back to the original acceptance criteria"). Clear sequence with explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and a checklist matches anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist or are needed: the skill is self-contained at modest size, cleanly sectioned (When to Use, Assignment Rules, Agent Brief Template, Review Checklist, Recovery Prompt, Example, Tips), and nothing in it belongs in a separate file. Well-organized sections with no reference depth or navigation issues satisfy the top anchor for a skill with no need for external references.

Specificity

"Plan, delegate, review, and recover coding-agent implementation work" lists four concrete actions plus three named mechanisms ("tight scope control, acceptance criteria, and validation"), comprehensively covering the skill's actual phases with no coverage gaps. It matches the comprehensive-coverage anchor; anchor 4 would require a missing action or mechanism.

Completeness

The description clearly answers "what" (four actions with scope control, acceptance criteria, and validation) but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so "when" is entirely missing. Per the judging guidelines this caps completeness at 3; it cannot reach anchor 4 without any 'when' statement.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "coding-agent", "delegate", "review", "recover", and "implementation work" are natural phrasings users would say, but tool names users would actually mention ("Claude Code", "Codex") and "diff" are absent. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing fits anchor 4, not the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"coding-agent" plus management verbs (plan, delegate, recover) carves a mostly distinct niche, but phrases like "review ... implementation work" risk minor overlap with generic code-review skills since no explicit trigger disambiguates. Anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk) fits better than anchor 5's minimal-conflict bar.