Conciseness

The body is dense and opinionated, teaching only project-specific concepts (gate/judge split, anti-inception rule, gap-test principles) and assuming Claude's competence. Not 5 because a few sentences are motivational history ('This skill exists because evals were fragmented into three shapes') rather than instruction.

Actionability

Gives concrete thresholds ('≥40% of a judged score must require articulation', 'run ≥2 for a gate check, ≥4 for reporting'), exact file layouts, and named runners (moltnet eval run, run_eval/judge_eval_attempt). Not 5 because exact runner invocations and field schemas are deferred to references, leaving minor executable gaps for an instruction-only skill.

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step method is clearly sequenced with an explicit audit→iterate feedback loop ('Re-run when the task was unclear, the environment unrealistic, the verifier wrong, or infra failed'), safety checkpoints (no production writes, reset mutable state between trials), and a separate review workflow with a keep/fix/cut verdict output and checklist reference.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that appropriately splits field schemas, the review checklist, and incident-to-eval procedure into three real, well-signaled reference files linked at point of need. All referenced files exist, and references link only to siblings within the same level — one level deep with easy navigation.

Specificity

Names the domain and three concrete actions ('Review, improve, and author MoltNet evals') plus three specific corpora with real paths (evals-v2/, evals/moltnet-practices/, context-pack evals). Not 5 because sub-actions like baseline measurement and trap design surface only as trigger phrases, leaving minor gaps in coverage.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ('Review, improve, and author MoltNet evals — one discipline across every use case') and when ('Use when asked to…') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 example structure.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes seven natural phrases a user would actually say ('review an eval', 'is this eval trustworthy', 'improve/rewrite an eval scenario', 'write an eval', 'create an eval from an incident', 'check the baseline', 'gap-test'), including synonyms and jargon variants. Comprehensive coverage; no common variation is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche scoped to MoltNet evals with named directories, the gate+judge harness, and gap-test terminology; all triggers are eval-specific, so conflict risk with adjacent review or testing skills is minimal.