Conciseness

The body is dense, instruction-only, and explains nothing Claude already knows, but the step-1 plugin paragraph restates failure conditions ('because the user declined, the install failed, or it is not visible after the install') already covered by the preceding sentences — minor instances that could be trimmed, matching the 4 anchor. It is not 5 because those redundant tokens do not fully earn their place, and not 3 because the verbosity is confined to one paragraph and the rest is lean.

Actionability

Concrete commands appear throughout ('tessl code repo view <owner/repo> --json', 'tessl whoami', 'tessl install -g <plugin>', fetch and compare 'HEAD' with 'origin/<default branch>') plus the exact question to ask ('Do you want me to push this and open a pull request?') and a field to check ('repository.review.enabled'). It is not 5 because the core how-to — building candidate rules, writing tier files, the proposal-list display format — lives entirely in the reference files so the body alone is not copy-paste executable, and not 3 because every delegation is precise, with named sections, anchors, and explicit fallback rules.

Workflow Clarity

Eight numbered steps with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: preflight ('Stop where those checks stop'), a hard gate ('Change nothing in the repository... until the user has picked what to apply in step 5'), spend control ('ask once for one plan with a firm total'), push only on user yes, and error recovery at nearly every step (subagent failure → 'skip the score, tell the user in one line, and go on'; Code Review command failure → 'treat Code Review as off... and continue'; failed install → "'needs <plugin>' items, shown but not applied"). This matches the 5 anchor's clear sequence with explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview delegating to nine references/*.md files, all one level deep; every cited anchor (routing.md#the-proposal-list, apply.md#start-the-branch-step-6, verifiers.md#1-write-one-file-per-rule, lenses.md#backtest, context.md#edit-an-existing-file, scoring.md#re-score-step-8) resolves to a real heading in the bundle, and scripts are reachable via references (scoring.md → scripts/build-report.mjs and scripts/rescore.mjs, evidence.md → scripts/collect-evidence.mjs). It is not 5 because three links point outside the bundle into the sibling factory-setup skill (../factory-setup/SKILL.md, ../factory-setup/references/starters.md, ../factory-setup/references/progress.md), which is not part of this bundle, and the timeline format is delegated wholly to that external file; it is not 3 because within the bundle the structure, signaling, and navigation are clean and complete.

Specificity

Quotes 'better agent context, verifiers, Code Review lenses, and lint rules drawn from how the team already works' — it names the domain and four concrete deliverables, matching the 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' anchor. It is not 5 because the actions are deliverable categories rather than a comprehensive set of atomic operations, and not 3 because well more than 1-2 concrete actions are named.

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' ('Prepare an existing repository so Tessl agents and Tessl Code Review work well in it: better agent context, verifiers, Code Review lenses, and lint rules...') and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when' clause listing three concrete trigger scenarios. This matches the 5 anchor exactly; it is not 4 because the 'when' is fully explicit and specific rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like 'wants agents to make fewer mistakes in their repo', 'wants to prepare or improve their repo for agents', and 'wants to turn recurring review feedback into checks' are natural things a user would say, giving good keyword coverage. It is not 5 because a few natural synonyms are absent (e.g. 'get the repo agent-ready', 'reduce agent errors'), and not 3 because coverage goes beyond a couple of keywords to several realistic trigger phrasings.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Tessl repo-preparation niche with triggers like 'turn recurring review feedback into checks' is mostly distinct with minimal conflict risk. It is not 5 because 'wants to prepare or improve their repo for agents' has minor overlap with the sibling factory-setup skill, and not 3 because the scope (repo readiness, review feedback into checks) is clearly distinguishable from generic skills.