Conciseness

The body is a lean routing document with no concept explanations and no padding: install commands plus three numbered routing steps. Not a 5 because of minor trimmable content: the closing paragraph ('The recipe only covers one part of the task. The meta-skill handles everything else the user asked for.') restates the governance point already made in step 2, and 'deepline -h' in the Quick Start adds little. Not a 3 because there is no unnecessary explanation, only slight redundancy.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: 'npm install -g deepline', 'Invoke `deepline-gtm` using the Skill tool', and an exact reference path ('../deepline-gtm/recipes/deepline-monitors.md (relative to this file)'). Not a 5 because nothing covers what to do after the recipe loads (no examples of the common monitor workflows) and the referenced file cannot be verified within the bundle; not a 3 because the instructions given are specific and executable, not high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence (invoke the meta-skill, follow its full routing, read the recipe only when the gate routes to it) with the routing gate in step 3 acting as an explicit conditional checkpoint and the reminder that 'Conditional access and safety checks still apply'. Not a 5 because there is no error-recovery guidance for failure cases (meta-skill unavailable, gate not routing, no access reported); not a 3 because the sequence and its conditional checkpoint are explicit, not merely implied.

Progressive Disclosure

A short, well-organized overview (Quick Start, Execution order) that appropriately delegates all detail to a single one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference ('../deepline-gtm/recipes/deepline-monitors.md') — textbook progressive disclosure for a router skill. Not a 5 because that referenced path resolves to no file in or around this bundle (no references/ directory exists and no sibling deepline-gtm directory is present), so navigation cannot be verified; not a 3 because the structure is clean and the reference is clearly signaled with an explicit relative path and gating condition.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('provider event feeds (job posts, email replies, funding, intent) that stream into your warehouse and trigger plays') with 1-2 concrete actions ('run `deepline monitors status` first', 'tell the user to contact the Deepline team'), matching the base anchor 3 (not comprehensive about actual monitor capabilities). However, it uses second-person voice ('Only use if you have monitor access', 'your warehouse', 'tell the user'), which the rubric explicitly penalizes by reducing specificity by 1, giving 2. It is not a 1 because the domain and gating actions are concrete, not vague.

Completeness

Both parts are present: what ('Deepline Monitors are provider event feeds (job posts, email replies, funding, intent) that stream into your warehouse and trigger plays') and when ('Only use if you have monitor access: run `deepline monitors status` first; if it reports no access, do NOT use this recipe'). Not a 5 because the 'when' is purely access-conditional and never states which user tasks or requests should trigger the skill (e.g., 'use when the user asks to monitor job posts or funding news'); not a 3 because a use-condition is explicitly stated rather than merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms a user would plausibly say: 'job posts', 'email replies', 'funding', 'intent', 'monitors', 'event feeds'. Not a 5 because common synonyms and variations (e.g., 'job postings', 'alerts', 'buying signals', 'sales triggers') are absent; not a 3 because coverage goes beyond a couple of generic terms to the specific feed types users would mention.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with product-specific triggers ('Deepline Monitors', '`deepline monitors status`', 'the Deepline team') that are unlikely to collide with any other skill. Fully matches the anchor for minimal conflict risk.