Conciseness

The ~40-line body is dense and lean: every line is instruction (tool-to-diff mapping, run commands, stop rules) with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It matches anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; every token earns its place') — nothing to trim without losing guidance.

Actionability

Concrete commands are given ('Rode `python3 scripts/agent_loop.py` (ou `apm run loop`, ou o prompt `run-agent-loop`)'), the tool selection map is fully specific (Python → Ruff/mypy/Bandit, any change → gitleaks, dependency file → pip-audit, Dockerfile/Terraform/CloudFormation → Trivy), and failure handling names concrete artifacts (`propriedade_quebrada`, `contraexemplo_minimo`). Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5: the mechanics of the loop and feedback format are deferred to `loop.yaml` and docs the reader must open, and no inline example shows a check invocation or failure output.

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step sequence has explicit validation checkpoints ('Só feche quando o que falhava passa e o que já passava continua passando'), feedback loops with error recovery (fix `propriedade_quebrada`/`contraexemplo_minimo` on failure), and hard stop conditions (repeated failure hash → discard the patch; cap of 3 iterations; missing tool is a failure). This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops for error recovery).

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: three clear sections, details correctly deferred one level deep to well-signaled sources ('Fonte da verdade (não copie o texto dessas páginas; abra e siga)': `docs/qualidade-seguranca.md`, `docs/agent-delivery-loop.md`), with the operational check map inlined where it belongs. It falls short of anchor 5 because the referenced files (`loop.yaml`, `scripts/*.sh`, docs) are not part of the skill bundle, and 'Fonte extra: `docs/papers-research.md`' is tacked onto the end of the step list rather than placed with the other sources.

Specificity

The description names its domain ("closing a Python coding task", "quality or security checks", "agent delivery loop", "data-platform change") but states no concrete skill capabilities — it never says what the skill actually does (e.g., which checks it runs or how it drives the loop). This matches anchor 2 ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'); it is not 3 because no concrete skill action is listed, and not 1 because the domain is clearly identified.

Completeness

The description is entirely a 'when' clause ("Use when closing... choosing... or deciding...") with no statement of what the skill does — the capability side is absent, not merely weakly implied. This matches anchor 2 ('only when is present without what'); it cannot be 3 because the 'what' is the missing half, not the 'when'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases users would plausibly say are present: "closing a Python coding task", "quality or security checks", "another pass". It misses common variations such as "lint", "run the checks/tests", "code review", or "audit", so it fits anchor 4 (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Phrases like "quality or security checks" on a "Python coding task" overlap broadly with generic code-review, lint, and security-review skills, though the "agent delivery loop" and "data-platform" framing narrows it. This is anchor 3 (somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills) — not 4, since the overlap risk with closely related check/review skills is more than minor.