Conciseness

The body is information-dense (tables, contracts, exact query strings) but at ~600 lines it includes unnecessary material: the person schema is repeated verbatim across three output contracts, and the "Why this is the #1 signal", "Key Differences from Other Signal Composites", and parts of "Tips" restate rationale that could be tightened or cut. Not 4 because the repetition and rationale padding are more than minor; not 2 because most sections are table-driven domain knowledge Claude would not already know, not generic filler.

Actionability

Fully executable for an instruction-only skill: typed input/output contracts for every step, exact search-query patterns (e.g., '"{full_name}" AND ("{last_known_company}" OR "joined" OR "new role")'), per-approach email template shapes with worked examples, and deterministic tier-assignment rules. The scoring note explicitly says absence of code is not penalized in instruction-only skills when guidance is this actionable.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 6-step process (0-5) with an explicit human checkpoint after every step and real validation (movers table, qualification approval, sample approval), plus error fallbacks (email_not_found → LinkedIn; dark profile → manual check). Not 5 because there is no feedback loop for what happens when a checkpoint is rejected or a step partially fails (no revise/re-run guidance), leaving a minor validation gap.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the body is a well-sectioned monolith: the one-time config questionnaire, the email template/example library, and full sample checkpoints are all inline content that clearly belongs in one-level-deep reference files. Not 2 because section structure, headers, and an execution summary make navigation genuinely easy; not 4 because nothing is split out and the file is far too long to qualify for the short-skill exception.

Specificity

"Takes a set of known people (past buyers, champions, power users), detects when they move to a new company, researches the new company for ICP fit, and drafts personalized outreach" lists multiple specific concrete actions covering the full pipeline comprehensively; not below 5 because no meaningful action is missing, and the anchors at 3-4 require fewer or less complete action coverage.

Completeness

The "what" is clear and multi-part, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the "when" is not merely implicit-but-usable — it is entirely absent from the description.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "job change", "champions", "power users", "moved to a new company", and "outreach" are present, but common user phrasings such as "champion tracking", "former customers", or "job change alerts" are missing — the body's "When to Auto-Load" section contains these triggers but they were not surfaced into the description. Not 5 because synonym/variation coverage is incomplete; not 3 because coverage is genuinely good rather than partial.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"champion/buyer/user job change signal composite" carves a distinct niche (tracking known people vs. companies) with low conflict risk against generic outreach skills. Not 5 because "drafts personalized outreach" overlaps with sibling outreach composites (cold-email, linkedin-outreach) and the description does not state the differentiator (warm vs. cold) explicitly enough to eliminate that risk; not 3 because the niche is far more specific than the anchor's generic overlap example.