Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient — imperative, no explanation of concepts the agent already knows — but it repeats itself: the reference-path/graph rules (backtick path vs `[[wiki-link]]`, global references not being graph docs) appear nearly verbatim in both Stage 3 and Stage 5, the 'import via OpenKnowledge, not `npx skills add`' instruction is stated twice within Stage 1, and the Reminders section re-litigates the Stage 1 gate. This matches 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not 2 because there is no padding or explanation of known concepts, just duplication.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready throughout: exact verb signatures (`write({ skill: { name, description, body, scope } })`, `edit({ skill: { name, file, find, replace } })`, `install({ name, add, remove, mode, convert, source })`), a concrete scope table with example folder paths, and a precise frontmatter contract (name 'lowercase letters, digits, hyphens; ≤64; equals the directory', description '≤1024 chars, no XML tags, no version field'). This matches 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

Stages 1–8 are explicitly ordered ('Work the stages below in order, but jump to where the user already is') with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the Stage 1 reuse gate with a hard STOP condition, the Stage 4 RED baseline, and Stage 6's GREEN eval with 'patch any loophole and re-test'. This matches 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'; score 4 would require missing checkpoints, and none are missing.

Progressive Disclosure

Both body references point at real, verified bundle files — `references/description-optimization.md` (Stage 7) and `references/pressure-testing.md` (Stage 6) — signaled with clear backticked paths, one level deep, with the depth genuinely split out of the ~228-line body. This matches 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation'; there is no inline bulk that belongs in a reference file.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('a new Agent Skill (a SKILL.md)') and enumerates multiple concrete actions — 'choosing scope (project vs global), authoring inside a plugin or skills-distribution repo…, the SKILL.md frontmatter contract, progressive-disclosure structure, evaluating the skill, and installing it into the user's editors' — which is comprehensive coverage of the authoring workflow. This matches the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'; it is not score 4 because there are no material gaps in the actions covered.

Completeness

Both 'what' and 'when' are explicit: it opens with 'Use when the user wants to create, author, write, or design a new Agent Skill', adds a second explicit 'Also use when capturing reusable agent guidance', and states what the skill covers concretely. This matches the anchor 'Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'; score 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

It covers natural user phrasings exhaustively: synonyms 'create, author, write, or design', verbatim trigger quotes like 'help me write a skill', 'make a skill that…', 'turn this workflow into a skill', plus adjacent phrasings 'improving an existing skill's triggering and discipline' and 'capturing reusable agent guidance… as an installable skill rather than a one-off prompt'. This matches the comprehensive-synonyms anchor; only a couple of rarer verbs ('build', 'package') are absent, which is below the 'a few natural terms missing' bar of score 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear — Agent Skill authoring scoped 'for OpenKnowledge or for their editors' — with distinct verbatim triggers, but skill-authoring is a crowded category (the body itself searches marketplaces for existing authoring skills), so 'help me write a skill' could plausibly overlap with sibling authoring/eval skills in the same environment. This lands on 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than 5, since a competing generic skill-authoring skill would share several of these triggers.