Conciseness

The body doesn't explain concepts Claude already knows, but it has three redundant sections: 'When to Use This Skill' restates the frontmatter description, 'Key Principles' (Show don't tell / connect to principles / make it actionable / verify everything) duplicates content in references/writing-guidelines.md, and the Resources section re-summarizes the reference files' own contents. Fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'. Not 2 — the prose itself is tight and there's no padding or over-explanation.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete for an instruction-only skill: a 9-item fill-in structure with specific quantities ('3+ realistic, concrete prompts', '4 key benefits'), a 'Normal vs Better' pattern requirement, a ready-to-use template file, and a save step. Falls short of 5 only because no inline example or excerpt of a finished post is shown — the template lives entirely in the asset file — leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow (Understand → Plan → Draft → Apply Guidelines → Save) is clearly sequenced and includes explicit validation checkpoints: a research checklist in step 1 and a quality-checklist review of the draft in step 4, mirroring the anchor's 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps... checklists for complex processes'. No destructive/batch operations, so no cap applies. Not 4 — the checkpoints are present, not merely implied.

Progressive Disclosure

Both referenced bundle files exist (references/writing-guidelines.md, assets/post-template.md), are one level deep, and match their descriptions. The body is organized into Overview / When to Use / Workflow / Key Principles / Resources. Kept at 4 rather than 5 because the 'Key Principles' section inlines guidance that belongs in (and partly duplicates) writing-guidelines.md — a minor organization gap where content that should live in the reference is inline.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Writes educational Teams channel posts about Claude Code features and best practices') but only offers one concrete action — writing posts — plus a note that templates are used; no broader action coverage (e.g., drafting, editing, formatting). This matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. Not 4, since several distinct specific actions are not listed; not 2, since the action and domain are clearly stated.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: 'what' via 'Writes educational Teams channel posts about Claude Code features and best practices, using templates...' and 'when' via the concrete 'Use when writing a Teams post or announcement to teach colleagues Claude Code usage, announce a feature, share a tip, or document a lesson learned.' This mirrors the anchor-5 example structure of explicit what + concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present: 'writing a Teams post or announcement', 'announce a feature', 'share a tip', 'document a lesson learned', 'teach colleagues Claude Code usage'. Good keyword coverage that users would naturally say, but a few common variants are missing (e.g., 'channel message', 'share an update', 'Teams announcement') — fits 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing', not the comprehensive synonym-level coverage of a 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is narrow and clearly scoped — writing educational Teams channel posts about Claude Code — with triggers ('Teams post', 'announcement', 'share a tip') that are unlikely to fire for other skills. Minimal overlap with general writing or documentation skills.