Conciseness

The body is lean: quick-start code, a result dataclass, a compact table, and short lists, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The ~45-line ASCII diagram is minor padding that could be tightened into a compact numbered workflow, keeping it below anchor 5.

Actionability

The Quick Start code is real and executable — AutonomousLoop, run(), and LoopConfig(max_sessions, token_budget, auto_checkpoint) all match the actual scripts in the bundle. Minor gaps remain: no example of creating/loading the feature list, and 'from scripts.autonomous_loop' assumes a package context without setup guidance, so it is not fully copy-paste ready (anchor 5).

Workflow Clarity

The workflow diagram lays out a clear sequence (initialize → feature loop → context check → completion) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Run E2E tests', 'If fail: recover or rollback') — matching anchor 4's 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. It falls short of anchor 5 because the phases lack concrete commands (e.g., how to trigger continuation or what 'check context limits' means operationally).

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well structured with clearly labeled one-level-deep References and Scripts sections, and the four listed scripts exist. However, both referenced detail files — 'references/LOOP-LIFECYCLE.md' and 'references/CONTINUATION-PROTOCOL.md' — do not exist in the bundle, so the detail content they promise is unreachable. Scored against the actual bundle structure, this lands at anchor 3: some structure, but the references do not deliver.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Main orchestration loop for autonomous coding') but the only action stated is the generic 'orchestration loop'; concrete capabilities like implementing features, running tests, checkpointing, or recovering from failures are never stated. It matches anchor 2 ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic') rather than anchor 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

Both a 'what' ('Main orchestration loop for autonomous coding') and an explicit 'when' ('Use when running autonomous sessions, orchestrating feature completion...') are present. The 'what' is a vague label rather than a concrete capability statement, so it falls short of anchor 5's 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when'.

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when' clause provides good natural-phrase coverage: 'running autonomous sessions', 'orchestrating feature completion', 'managing continuous loops', 'coordinating agent lifecycle'. A few natural variations users would say are missing (e.g., 'run continuously', 'keep going until done', 'auto-continue'), so it is not anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The autonomous-coding orchestration niche is fairly distinct with specific triggers ('autonomous sessions', 'agent lifecycle'). There is minor overlap risk with closely related orchestration/session-management skills in the same ecosystem, so anchor 4 fits better than anchor 5.