Conciseness

The body is dense and rule-per-sentence with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but inline time-sensitive statistics ("Over September and October 2026, about half of all dispatches in this repository went to `general-purpose`") sit outside any old-patterns section, and the "How much the effort levels are worth here is not measured" meta-commentary could be trimmed. Efficient overall with minor trims available — anchor 4, not 3 (no concept-explaining padding) and not 5 (the dated stats and meta section cost tokens without guiding a dispatch).

Actionability

Fully concrete guidance covering the common cases: a complete task-to-agent table, a complexity-label table, an executable command (grep -n '"<package>"' <workspace>/package.json), explicit defaults ("default to `implementer`"), and named exceptions ("Ignore a rating carrying `complexity:unconfirmed`", "a double review passes `effort: xhigh` on its second `reviewer` pass"). Every rule is specific enough to act on directly.

Workflow Clarity

The decision procedure has a clear entry point ("Choose the agent definition for `$ARGUMENTS`. If it is empty, ask what the task is"), a defined output contract ("One name from `.claude/agents/`, and one sentence saying why"), and embedded checkpoints ("Check the semver delta before you choose, do not infer it"). Not 5 because the branching conditions — session age, plugin dispatch templates, the one-code-writing-agent-per-worktree rule — are distributed across sections the reader must synthesize rather than sequenced as a checklist; no destructive or batch operation applies a cap.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the single file is well-sectioned with clear headers, cohesive tables, and a logical flow from rubric to exceptions to consumers. Minor gap: peripheral content — the "What consumes this" dispatch-site inventory and the dated dispatch statistics — is inlined in SKILL.md where a one-level-deep reference file would keep the core rubric leaner, which fits anchor 4's "minor organization gaps" rather than anchor 5.

Specificity

"mapping a task and its declared complexity to an agent definition, and so to a model and an effort level" lists several concrete actions (definition choice, model, effort level) plus a concrete integration point ("Invoked by orchestrate when it hands off a task"). Not 5 because it never states what the skill produces (one agent name plus a rationale); not 3 because coverage goes beyond 1-2 generic actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("mapping a task and its declared complexity to an agent definition, and so to a model and an effort level") and when, with multiple concrete trigger phrases ("Use when dispatching a subagent and choosing which one", "Invoked by orchestrate when it hands off a task", "also the answer to 'should this run on a cheaper model'"). Matches the anchor for both what and when with concrete triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user would actually say: "dispatching a subagent", "should this run on a cheaper model", "is general-purpose right here". Missing a few common variants (e.g. "which agent", "pick a model"), which keeps it below the comprehensive-synonyms anchor at 5 but clearly above anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — choosing among this repository's agent definitions — anchored by distinctive named triggers ("orchestrate", "is general-purpose right here"). Not 5 because the broad opening territory of "dispatching a subagent" carries minor overlap risk with general orchestration or workflow skills.