Conciseness

The ~50-line body is lean and directive throughout — "Never auto-apply a skill change", "Keep rejected ideas in the session rather than building a permanent backlog of noise" — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every sentence adds a constraint or instruction, matching anchor 5.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is highly actionable: enumerated evidence sources, a five-field per-candidate record checklist, an explicit routing table (tooling / .factory/CONTEXT.md / .factory/FACTORY.json / narrowest existing skill / new skill), and a copy-paste Output template. It stays at anchor 4 because there are no concrete commands or a worked example showing how to mine tickets or fill in the template.

Workflow Clarity

The select → derive → evaluate → ask-user → apply sequence is unambiguous with real checkpoints: "Only after explicit approval may the relevant skill-authoring workflow edit the skill repository", "Validate changed skills and rerun affected evaluations", and the accept/revise/reject decision loop. It falls short of anchor 5 because the steps are prose sections rather than an explicitly numbered workflow, and key validation detail is delegated to the reference file instead of inline feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that appropriately splits evaluation detail into a single well-signaled, one-level-deep reference ("Read [references/evaluation.md](references/evaluation.md)"), which exists in the bundle and points to no further nested files. Navigation is trivial and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined, matching anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists three concrete actions — "Mine completed ticket evidence", "propose narrowly routed skill or tooling changes", and "compare candidates against a budget-aware evaluation set" — in third person with no filler. It falls short of anchor 5 because objects like "reusable factory improvements" remain abstract and coverage of what mining/evaluating concretely involves is not comprehensive.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: the "what" (mine, propose, compare) and the "when" ("Use after meaningful factory experience, not after every routine ticket"). The when-clause is explicit but not anchored to concrete trigger events — e.g. "after a costly failure" or "when the same pattern repeats" — which keeps it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain keywords are present ("ticket", "factory", "skill", "tooling"), matching anchor 3, but natural user phrasings such as "reflect", "retrospective", "lessons learned", or "postmortem" are missing. It is above anchor 2 because the terms are domain-specific rather than generic, but below anchor 4 since several common variations a user would naturally say are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Mine completed ticket evidence", "factory", and "budget-aware evaluation set" carve out a distinct retrospective niche with low trigger ambiguity. Minor overlap risk remains with skill-authoring skills via "propose narrowly routed skill… changes", placing it just below anchor 5's minimal-conflict bar.