Conciseness

The body avoids explaining known concepts and the Quick Start is tight, but the ~40-line ASCII box diagram conveys a workflow that a 10-line numbered list would state just as clearly, so a third of the body could be trimmed. Not 4 because the diagram is more than a minor instance of padding; not 2 because everything else (code, table, lists) is efficient and accurate.

Actionability

Both Quick Start snippets are real, executable code verified against the bundle — `await loop.run()`, `run(config)` with optional config, and `LoopConfig(max_sessions=10, token_budget=500000, auto_checkpoint=True)` all match the actual script signatures. Not 5 because `project_dir` is never defined or shown how to obtain it, so the snippets aren't fully copy-paste ready; not 3 because the code is genuinely executable, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The INIT → FEATURE LOOP → CONTEXT CHECK → COMPLETION sequence is clearly ordered with explicit validation checkpoints (E2E pass/fail branch, 'recover or rollback' feedback, context-limit check). Not 5 because the steps are design-level descriptions without concrete commands for actions like 'create checkpoint' or 'prepare handoff'; not 3 because pass/fail validation and error-recovery feedback are explicitly present.

Progressive Disclosure

The structure is good in intent — overview body with clearly signaled one-level-deep References and Scripts sections — and all four referenced scripts exist with matching classes. However, both referenced reference files (`references/LOOP-LIFECYCLE.md`, `references/CONTINUATION-PROTOCOL.md`) do not exist in the bundle, so navigation to the detail content is broken. Not 4 because dangling referenced paths are more than a minor organization gap; not 2 because the body itself is well-sectioned and scripts resolve correctly.

Specificity

The 'what' is a single abstract clause — "Main orchestration loop for autonomous coding" — and the action phrases ("orchestrating feature completion", "managing continuous loops", "coordinating agent lifecycle") are generic management-verb constructions rather than concrete capabilities, matching the 'domain plus 1-2 actions, not comprehensive' anchor. Not 4 because the rubric penalizes buzzword-style verbs; not 2 because the domain is clearly named and several action phrases are present.

Completeness

It has both parts: "Main orchestration loop for autonomous coding" (what) and an explicit "Use when running autonomous sessions, orchestrating feature completion..." clause (when) with concrete trigger phrases. Not 5 because the 'what' is a single thin clause that doesn't state what the loop actually does (implement, test, recover, hand off); not 3 because the 'when' is explicitly present, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like "running autonomous sessions", "managing continuous loops", and "autonomous coding" are natural terms a user would say when needing this skill, giving good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common variations like 'run until done', 'unattended', or 'keep going' are missing; not 3 because multiple relevant natural terms are present rather than just some.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The autonomous-coding niche is somewhat specific, but triggers like "running autonomous sessions" and "coordinating agent lifecycle" overlap directly with sibling skills named in the body (autonomous-session-manager, handoff-coordinator). Not 4 because multiple trigger phrases point at other skills in the same ecosystem; not 2 because the core 'autonomous loop' framing is distinctive.