Conciseness

The body is lean: dense tables instead of prose, a worked pass@k math example, a short YAML snippet, and no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows. It is not 5 because the Grader Types quick table and Capability/Regression table partially duplicate content in the referenced files and could be trimmed to pointers.

Actionability

Concrete elements exist (the pass@k/pass^k worked example, the tracked_metrics YAML, the imperative file-reading directive with labeled links), but the body itself contains no commands or steps for actually building an eval — all construction guidance is deferred to references. This matches anchor 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete); it is not 4 because there is no executable code or command sequence in the body, and not 2 because the navigation and concept guidance is specific and concrete.

Workflow Clarity

No sequenced steps or checkpoints appear in the body; the workflow is delegated to roadmap.md ("Steps 0-8 for building evals from scratch"), which is clearly signaled but not summarized inline. Anchor 3 fits: the immediate action (read the references) is unambiguous and the workflow's location is clear, but the body has no sequence of its own. Not 4 because no steps are listed in the body at all; not 2 because the workflow is explicitly and correctly routed to a bundled, existing file rather than missing.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean overview hub: a MUST directive to read references, eight one-level-deep reference links all verified to exist in references/, grouped under labeled sections (YAML Templates, Annotated Examples) each with a one-line description of contents. This matches anchor 5 (clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation) with no nesting or buried references.

Specificity

The description names the domain (agent evaluations) and trigger actions like "create evals" and "build evaluation suite", but never states the skill's own concrete capabilities (grader design, metrics, templates); anchor 3 fits "names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive." It is not 4 because the skill's specific actions are absent, and not 2 because multiple concrete domain actions are named.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit with quoted user phrases ("when the user asks to..."), but the 'what' is only implied through those triggers — the description never concretely states what the skill does. This matches anchor 4 (both present, one could be more explicit); it is not 5 because 'what' is never explicitly stated, and not 3 because the 'when' clause is fully explicit rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-phrase coverage: "create evals", "evaluate an agent", "build evaluation suite", "agent testing", "graders", "benchmarks", plus agent-type variants. It is not 5 because common synonyms such as "evaluation", "assess", or "score agent quality" are missing; not 3 because coverage goes well beyond a couple of generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Agent evaluation is a clear niche with distinct triggers (evals, graders, benchmarks), but "Also suggest when building coding agents, conversational agents, or research agents that need quality assurance" invites overlap with general agent-building skills. This is anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk); not 5 due to that broad proactive trigger, not 3 because the core triggers are unmistakably about evaluation.