Conciseness

The body is ~40 lean lines with zero padding — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Prerequisites, Composition, Hard rules, Workflow) earns its tokens. It matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor exactly.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: the exact no-edits suffix is given verbatim as copy-paste text, and specific tool calls are named (`list_profiles`, `create_agent`, `[Committee] <task>` titles). Not a 5 because "Write a problem-level prompt" and "Resolve disagreements by passing their arguments between each other" leave the actual prompt content and exchange mechanics unspecified.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit wait-for-responses checkpoint, a convergence loop (step 4-5), and a no-interrupt rule backed by the finish notification. Not a 5 because there is no guidance for the case where the agents never converge; not a 3 because the sequence and checkpoints are explicit, and the no-edits rule already de-risks the operation.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist), and the content is appropriately self-contained under clear section headers. Per the simple-skill guideline, well-organized sections with no external references warrant a 5; the paseo-skill dependency is a prerequisite, not a buried reference.

Specificity

"Form a committee of two high-reasoning agents", "do root cause analysis", and "produce a plan" list several specific actions in third-person voice. Not a 5 because coverage stops at the high-level outcome (the debate/consensus mechanics in the body are absent) and "step back" is abstract; not a 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are named.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the what ("Form a committee of two high-reasoning agents to step back, do root cause analysis, and produce a plan") and the when ("Use when stuck, looping, tunnel-visioning, or facing a hard planning problem") with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor-5 example structure of capability list followed by an explicit 'Use when' clause.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when stuck, looping, tunnel-visioning, or facing a hard planning problem" includes natural phrases users would actually say ("stuck", "looping", "hard planning problem"). Missing common synonyms like "spinning in circles", "spinning wheels", or "blocked" that would push it to 5; well above the generic one-or-two-keyword level of 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The committee/root-cause/stuck-looping framing carves out a distinct niche unlikely to fire for ordinary debugging or planning requests. Minor overlap risk with generic 'planning' or 'brainstorm' skills keeps it below 5; it is far more distinct than the broad-overlap anchors of 2-3.