Conciseness

Mostly efficient with no over-explanation of known concepts, but it could be tightened: the local-vs-Glean distinction is stated in the opening paragraph ("Local tools (`Grep`, `Glob`, `Read`) see only the current repo") and repeated almost verbatim in the "Key differentiator" section, and the Vetting section's "Filter out:" line duplicates the criteria already given in the Quality/Recency/Relevance tests and the section's opening sentence. Not 4 because the duplication is noticeable across three sections, not minor trimming.

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: exact tool names (`code_search`, `search`, `employee_search`, `read_document`) in a selection table keyed to user intent, vetting criteria with specific thresholds ("Commits in past 3 months", "12+ months"), and specific presentation rules (full URL, last-update date, group by repo, flag drift). Per the code_vs_instruction note, absent code is not penalized since the guidance is actionable; it falls short of 5 only because no example `code_search` invocation or concrete search pattern appears inline — full param shape is delegated to the reference file.

Workflow Clarity

The sections read in workflow order (when to reach for it → tool selection → vetting → output expectations) and vetting functions as an explicit validation checkpoint with pass/fail tiers (GOOD/ACCEPTABLE/POOR, ACTIVE/SLOWING/STALE, RELEVANT/RELATED/TANGENTIAL) before surfacing results. Not 5 because the search → vet → present sequence is implicit rather than stated as steps, and there is no error-recovery guidance (e.g., what to do when a search returns nothing or only POOR matches). Not a destructive/batch skill, so no validation cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled, one level deep, with descriptive labels, and the body stays an overview — but the bundle contains no files at all, so the promised `reference/exploration.md` and `reference/plan-prep.md` (plus the cross-skill `../using-glean/reference/...` paths) are dangling. Not 4 because missing own-bundle reference files are more than a minor organization gap: navigation to the referenced workflow material fails as shipped.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete capabilities: "Search and analyze internal source code across the organization's repositories", locating where code lives, finding who has been working on a codebase, and finding similar patterns across teams — comprehensive coverage of the skill's actions, matching the top anchor. Not 4 because no capability area is left uncovered.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: what ("Search and analyze internal source code across the organization's repositories") and when ("use when asked how something is implemented, where the code for a system lives...") with concrete trigger phrases, plus explicit negative triggers ("Do not use for code in the current working directory..."). This matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Nine natural trigger phrases users would actually say are enumerated: "how is X implemented, where is the code for, find the implementation of, what repos contain, who wrote the code for, how do other teams handle, find similar code to, examples of using, prior art for" — including synonyms like "prior art". Not 4 because the coverage is comprehensive rather than 'a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche is staked out (cross-org code search vs. local tools), with explicit disambiguation against local Grep/Glob, the using-glean skill's search reference for design docs, and its employee-search reference for people lookups — minimal conflict risk.