Conciseness

The operational sections (Steps 1–7, Anti-Patterns, Maintenance) are lean, but roughly 40% of the body is A/B eval tables, 'What the data shows', methodology caveats, and a prior-work citations section; the 'Contract' section even states it 'exists for the conformance test' and 'Output Format' restates Step 4. Version numbers and dates (v0.31.7, v0.32.3.0, 2026-05-11, v0.33.x) appear throughout rather than in a deprecated section, which the time-sensitive guideline penalizes. Not 2 because the padding is domain-specific evidence rather than concepts Claude already knows; not 4 because several sections could be cut or trimmed without losing executability.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact commands ('gbrain routing-eval --json', 'node harness.mjs --variants-dir "$TMP" --variants my-edit --model opus --parallel 3 --yes'), a copy-paste area-entry template, concrete thresholds (12KB gate, 95% revert threshold), cost estimates, and a worked before/after example. Placeholders like EDITED and API key are clearly marked.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–7 are clearly sequenced with explicit preconditions that refuse to proceed (size gate, clean working tree), two mandatory validation gates, and feedback loops ('If accuracy ... drops below 95%, revert and tune') including a common-causes diagnosis list. The batch/destructive cap does not apply because validation is present and explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with clear headers and easy navigation, but it is a ~320-line monolith with no bundle files at all: the A/B eval results, reproduce receipts, prior-work citations, and harness internals clearly belong in a one-level-deep reference file. Not 2 because, unlike the anchor-2 example, the structure is genuinely well organized; not 4 because significant content that should be separate is inlined in SKILL.md.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete, domain-specific actions in third person ('Compress an agent's routing file (RESOLVER.md or AGENTS.md)', 'converting granular skill-per-row tables into functional-area dispatchers', 'lists sub-skills in a "(dispatcher for: ...)" clause'). Not 5 because the final sentences ('Proven via held-out A/B eval...') are justification rather than additional capabilities, so coverage has minor gaps.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly and concretely answered, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 2 because the 'what' is specific and complete, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: 'compress', 'routing file', 'RESOLVER.md', 'AGENTS.md', 'functional-area dispatchers', 'sub-skills'. Not 5 because common user phrasings like 'shrink', 'too big/large', or 'slim down' are absent from the description itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — compressing routing tables into functional-area dispatchers — with distinct, unambiguous triggers; no realistic overlap with other skill domains.