Conciseness

The body is lean — a decision table plus five terse cross-tool rules, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. A few meta-commentary lines could be trimmed ('This skill is the entry point. It maps a user's question…', 'Internalize them, don't re-derive per call.'), which keeps it below the 5 anchor's 'every token earns its place' but well above 3's 'some unnecessary explanation'.

Actionability

Concrete, executable routing guidance: an intent→tool decision table with exact bare tool names ('search', 'employee_search', 'meeting_lookup', 'code_search'…), the raw MCP naming pattern ('mcp__glean_[server-name]__[tool]'), a fallback action when tools are absent ('ask the user to set up Glean'), and hard rules like 'Never use search for people lookups… Use employee_search'. Per the rubric's instruction-skill note, the absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is fully actionable.

Workflow Clarity

The core single action (map intent → tool → open its reference file) is unambiguous via the decision table, and error handling is built into the cross-tool rules ('Permission-empty results are valid signals… report empty cleanly', 'No URL → likely fabricated', vetting before presenting). However, the flow (check inventory → route → open reference → apply rules → vet) is implied rather than laid out as an explicit sequence, so it falls between the 4 and 5 anchors rather than matching 5's explicit stepwise structure.

Progressive Disclosure

Textbook overview structure: every deep detail is pushed to clearly signaled one-level-deep reference files in the decision table and a dedicated cross-cutting reference section, matching the 5 anchor's shape. However, no bundle files ship with this skill (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist), so the 12+ referenced paths under 'reference/' cannot be verified and the directory name is nonstandard, leaving minor navigation uncertainty that holds it below 5.

Specificity

Names the domain comprehensively ('company documents, internal wikis, policies, RFCs, design docs, people, teams, meetings, decisions, action items, email, calendar events, internal code, and the user's own work activity') but the action itself is a single generic verb — 'answer questions about' — rather than several distinct concrete operations like the 5-anchor's 'extract, fill, merge, convert'. Comprehensive coverage with minor gaps places it above 3 (which expects only 1-2 concrete actions) and below 5 (multiple distinct actions).

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('Use Glean MCP tools to answer questions about company documents… internal code, and the user's own work activity') and when ('Reach for this whenever the answer lives in enterprise systems rather than the local codebase or public web' plus concrete trigger phrases), and adds an explicit when-not clause. This matches the 5 anchor's structure of what + when with concrete triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes ten natural trigger phrases users would actually say ('find the doc about', "what's our policy on", 'where is the spec for', 'who works on', 'who owns', 'find someone who knows', 'what was decided in the meeting', 'action items from', 'search my email', 'what did I work on last week', 'find the implementation in our repos') — comprehensive synonym-level coverage across the whole domain, matching the 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (enterprise knowledge via Glean MCP) with explicit boundary guidance: 'Don't use it for questions answerable from the local working directory, the public web, or generic programming knowledge.' This carves it away from local-code and web-search skills, minimizing overlap risk — matching the 5 anchor's 'clear niche with distinct triggers'.