Conciseness

The five lens items (existing systems, integrations, ownership, external dependencies) are repeated nearly verbatim three times — in the intro line, the "What is covered" bullets, and the Constraints MUSTs — and restated a fourth time in the Workflow steps; the body is mostly efficient but this duplication should be tightened, matching anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's "minor instances".

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete and executable ("including systems that are affected but not expected to change", "flag the gap for a clarifying question instead"), with only minor gaps such as no inline example of what a finished context-map report looks like — anchor 4 rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly numbered steps run from reading the reference to reporting results with "flag any item left open pending a clarifying answer" as a checkpoint; this is a non-destructive analysis skill so the validation cap does not apply, and the sequence matches anchor 4's "most checkpoints present" with minor validation gaps rather than anchor 5's explicit validate-and-retry loop.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with a single, real, one-level-deep reference (references/024-context-mapping.md) that is well signaled both by a markdown link in a Reference section and a MUST-read constraint in the workflow — fully matching anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists several specific action objects — "map the systems, integrations, owners, and external dependencies relevant to a problem" — but relies on a limited set of verbs (identify, map, evaluate) and omits actions the body covers (e.g., feeding findings into 025-quality-attribute-discovery), leaving minor gaps that fall short of the comprehensive anchor 5.

Completeness

Both what and when are explicitly and concretely stated: the what names the four deliverable categories (Existing systems, Integrations, Ownership, External dependencies), and two concrete trigger conditions follow ("when an issue's Context Mapping point of view needs evaluation, or when a maintainer directly asks to map…"), matching anchor 5 rather than the less-explicit anchor 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "map the systems, integrations, owners, and external dependencies" are present, but "an issue's Context Mapping point of view needs evaluation" is jargon users would not naturally say, and synonyms such as "system boundaries" or "data flows" are missing — good coverage with a few natural terms absent, matching anchor 4 rather than 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche (Context Mapping point of view, Plinth Toolkit, sibling skill 025-quality-attribute-discovery) with distinct triggers, but "map the systems… around a problem" could still overlap with generic architecture-mapping skills, matching the minor-overlap anchor 4.