Conciseness

The ~20-line body is lean and every token earns its place: a tight Inputs section, seven terse numbered steps, one heuristic rule, and an exit-criteria checklist. It explains nothing Claude already knows, matching the 5 anchor over the 4 anchor (no trimming opportunities found).

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable: named statuses ("FIXED IN DRAFT – DEPLOYED RETEST PENDING"), a defined verdict vocabulary ("VERIFIED, NOT FIXED, or PARTIALLY FIXED"), and the concrete fix-removal check ("run the same test against the build without the fix... It must FAIL"). Minor gaps remain — no method is given for confirming the build fingerprint matches or for producing a fix-reverted build — so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

The seven-step procedure is clearly sequenced and is itself built around validation checkpoints: fingerprint confirmation, exact repro repetition, regression-test diffing against the committed version, the fails-without-fix check, and adjacent-journey and side-effect sweeps, ending in an evidence-backed verdict and an explicit exit-criteria checklist. This matches the 5 anchor's explicit validation and checklists; no destructive/batch cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) and no need for external references, and it is organized into clean sections (Inputs, Procedure, Rule, Exit criteria). Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline this earns a 5 on well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

Multiple specific concrete actions are stated: "retesting the exact deployed build, the original failure, and adjacent journeys" plus scope constraints "from a fresh context with no write access". Coverage of the fix-verification domain is comprehensive rather than having minor gaps, so it matches the 5 anchor over the 4 anchor.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Independently verify a claimed fix... retesting the exact deployed build, the original failure, and adjacent journeys") and when ("Use whenever someone or some agent says a bug is fixed or a feature is done"). This matches the 5 anchor's concrete what-and-when pairing; the completeness cap for a missing 'Use when' clause does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases like "bug is fixed", "feature is done", and "verify a claimed fix" are present and would be said by users or agents. Common synonyms such as "retest", "confirm", or "QA" are missing, which fits the 4 anchor (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than the 5 anchor's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and unusual — independent verification from "a fresh context with no write access" — and the trigger ("someone or some agent says a bug is fixed") is distinct from generic QA or testing triggers, giving minimal conflict risk as in the 5 anchor.