Conciseness

Mostly efficient and dense with project-specific detail (no general-knowledge padding), but the subagent-isolation rationale is restated three times: the "Why subagent isolation matters" opener, the "Why the orchestrator validates, not a subagent" paragraph, and the information-flow diagram re-enumerating the same access rules. Not 2 because nothing is generic fluff and tables/commands are token-dense; not 4 because triple restatement of one rationale exceeds 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste CLI invocations with flags ($MOLTNET_CLI eval run --scenario <path> --pack <rendered-pack.md>, pack render --preview), the exact scenario directory layout, exact gate thresholds (≤60% PASS, 61-80% MARGINAL, >80% FAIL), the ≥15-point delta criterion, the run-at-least-2-times rule, and precise diary recording fields. Not 4 because commands and numeric thresholds cover the common cases completely.

Workflow Clarity

Both modes are numbered with explicit validation checkpoints: baseline run twice, gate-check table with actions per band, iterate loop that feeds the aggregate score back into a new AUTHOR subagent on failure, and a finalize checklist (remove rewrite-log, commit, record baseline + delta). Not 4 because validation steps are explicit at multiple points rather than merely present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview and pushes detail to four real, well-signaled, one-level-deep references (scenario-format.md, gap-test-principles.md, fixture-ref-discovery.md, author-subagent-prompt.md — all verified to exist with substantive content and no nested references). Not 4 because every reference is clearly labeled with its purpose and navigation is easy; main-flow content kept inline (gate table, diagrams) is appropriately core.

Specificity

"Evaluate rendered packs against scenarios and author new gap-test scenarios with adversarial baseline gating. Uses subagent isolation to prevent context leaks between authoring and validation" lists several concrete actions plus a concrete mechanism. Not 5 because coverage has minor gaps (run-mode delta measurement and diary recording from the body are absent); not 3 because it goes well beyond naming the domain with 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Evaluate rendered packs against scenarios and author new gap-test scenarios with adversarial baseline gating") and when ("Use when asked to ... or 'validate eval baselines'" with concrete trigger phrases). Not 4 because the 'when' clause is fully explicit with multiple concrete triggers rather than merely adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Six natural quoted trigger phrases users would actually say: "write evals", "create gap-test scenarios", "evaluate the pack", "test the context", "rewrite eval scenarios", "validate eval baselines" — covering synonyms and phrasing variations. Not 4 because no obvious common phrasing for this task is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Domain terms ("rendered packs", "gap-test scenarios", "eval baselines") carve a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, but "write evals" and "test the context" are generic enough to overlap with general eval-authoring or testing skills. Not 5 due to this minor overlap risk; not 3 because the description does not broadly overlap with unrelated skills.