Conciseness

Quotes: 'Skill lifecycle entrypoint. Resolve intent, engage the right agent.' and 'This skill owns skill lifecycle, not workflow templates or rendering.' The body is lean, assumes competence, and never explains concepts Claude already knows — but the opening lines ('Failure bug draft: assets/issue-templates/... Before filling, read its .hbs slot header...') are dense and oddly placed before any introduction, so minor tightening/reordering is possible. This is the score-4 anchor (efficient with minor trims) rather than the every-token-earns-its-place level of 5.

Actionability

Quotes: the routing table mapping intents to named agent files, the exact clarifying question ("Are you looking to find a skill, install or update one, create your own, or report a problem with one?"), and the copy-paste-ready migration message ('Remove its dependency from apm.yml, then run apm prune...'). Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill, but the MCP section describes intents ('intent: query', 'intent: inventory') without a concrete invocation example — a minor gap that keeps it at 4 rather than fully-executable 5.

Workflow Clarity

Quotes: 'Resolve intent, engage the right agent', '**Compound intents:** ...run agents sequentially. Pass the output of the first agent as context to the second', '**Loop prevention:** ...do not redirect back to fusion'. The routing decision flow is explicit and covers edge cases (compound intents, unclear intent, loop prevention, out-of-scope), and 'No GitHub mutations without confirmation' acts as a checkpoint. It is not 5 because mutation-capable lifecycle operations (install/update/remove, apm prune) have no validation/verification steps inline — those are delegated to the agent files — leaving minor validation gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

Quotes: 'Load ONLY the routed agent file. References are loaded on-demand...' and clear one-level-deep signals like 'references/service-mode-contract.md' and 'references/run-feedback.md'. The structure and loading policy are good, but scored against the actual bundle: the routing table's primary targets ('agents/discovery.agent.md', 'agents/greenkeeper.agent.md', 'agents/author.agent.md', 'agents/warden.agent.md') do not exist in the bundle — there is no agents/ directory — and 'references/follow-up-questions.md' is present but never referenced. Dangling primary navigation paths and an orphaned reference keep this at 3 (structure present but with organizational gaps) rather than 4.

Specificity

Quotes: 'finding, installing, updating, syncing or greenkeeping skills; creating or authoring a skill; reporting a skill bug; self-evaluating greenkeeping runs and deduplicating skill feedback'. This lists multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the skill lifecycle, matching the score-5 anchor. It is not a 4 because the action list is broad and itemized rather than having only minor gaps.

Completeness

Quotes: 'Entrypoint for Fusion skill lifecycle operations' (explicit what) and 'USE FOR: finding, installing, updating, syncing or greenkeeping skills...' (explicit when with concrete trigger phrases), plus an explicit 'DO NOT USE FOR' boundary. This clearly and explicitly answers both what and when, matching the score-5 anchor; the score-4 anchor's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: 'finding', 'installing', 'updating', 'reporting a skill bug', 'creating or authoring a skill' — natural phrases users would say. However, terms like 'greenkeeping', 'deduplicating skill feedback in editors or agent runtimes' are internal jargon, and common variations such as 'search skills' or 'browse the skill catalog' are absent, so it fits the score-4 anchor (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than comprehensive synonym coverage at 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: 'DO NOT USE FOR: repository workflows (use fusion-repository-greenkeeping), resolving GitHub issues, reviewing PRs, planning task breakdowns or authoring unrelated issues — use their dedicated Fusion skills.' The negative boundary plus the niche 'Fusion skill lifecycle' trigger gives a clear niche with minimal conflict risk (score 5), not merely 'minor overlap risk' as at 4.