Conciseness

Every token earns its place: dense rules ("1,000 calls with 0 failures; to claim a failure rate below 1 in N you need about 3N clean calls"), a compact check table, and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Even the Round 1 anecdote is two lines and justifies a non-obvious rule. Not 4 because there is nothing to trim.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance with concrete thresholds ("Pass 3 of 3", "Passes twice", "3,000 realistic requests", "p95 ≤ max(2× base p95, base p95 + 100 ms)"). Not 5 because `claim_audit.py` is invoked but absent from the bundle, and terms like "the canary", "the verifier clock", and "the Tester's ref" are not defined here; not 3 because the bulk of the guidance is specific and runnable as written.

Workflow Clarity

A workable sequence is laid out in order — re-derive inputs, run the check table (itself a checklist with explicit validation rules), choose from enumerated verdicts, then "A verdict JSON with every check, the evidence paths, and flags" — plus a feedback loop ("Before reporting a failure, reproduce it a second way") and error routing (TEST_DEFECT to the Tester). Not 5 because the ordering is implied by section order rather than explicit, and recovery paths for conflicting checks are unstated; not 3 because validation checkpoints pervade the skill.

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with clean section organization, which fits the simple-skill exception. Not 5 because the body references external artifacts — "`claim_audit.py` on the claim fields" and "test files come from the Tester's ref" — that have no corresponding files in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist); not 3 because the structure itself is well-organized with nothing inlined that belongs elsewhere.

Specificity

Multiple concrete actions are listed — "re-derived facts, hidden tests, statistics, soak, production config, latency budgets, and new-route inventory" — comprehensively covering the verification domain. Not 4 because coverage of the skill's capabilities is essentially complete, not just "several specific actions" with gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — "Independently decide whether a claimed fix or finished task is actually done"; when — "Use whenever any agent or person says something is fixed, done, working, deployed, or ready." Matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly; not 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural synonyms users and agents actually say: "fixed, done, working, deployed, or ready" (plus "finished task" earlier). Not 4 because the synonym set is comprehensive for this domain; file extensions are N/A for a non-file-format skill.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (independent done-claim verification gate) with distinct trigger phrasing, so mostly distinct. Not 5 because "deployed" and "working" overlap somewhat with deploy/testing skills in a multi-agent setup; not 3 because the core trigger — someone claiming completion — is far more specific than generic document/file skills.