Conciseness

The body is ~20 lines with zero padding: "Process steps in order. Do not skip ahead.", three one-line steps with exact commands, and "Finish here." Every token earns its place and nothing explains concepts Claude already knows. This squarely matches the lean-and-efficient anchor.

Actionability

Both run steps are copy-paste-ready commands with exact paths and arguments ("Run `skills/advocate/scripts/check.sh --router`"). It falls just short of fully-executable (5) because the helper paths target files outside this skill's bundle that are not verifiable from the skill itself, and no expected output or result handling is stated — minor gaps, matching the mostly-executable anchor.

Workflow Clarity

A three-step sequence with explicit ordering ("Process steps in order. Do not skip ahead."), per-step headers, and a termination marker ("Finish here."). The operations are non-destructive single commands, so no validation checkpoint is required, and under the simple-skill exception the clear, well-organized sequence earns the top score.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with well-organized sections, and its single reference ("See `skills/router/references/notes.md`") is one level deep, clearly signaled, and resolves to a real bundle file (references/notes.md). It is not 5 because the companion is cited via a workspace-rooted path rather than a bundle-relative link, a minor organization gap; the remaining step-1/2 paths are cross-skill operational targets rather than disclosure references.

Specificity

"Fixture skill that addresses another skill's helper across a skill boundary" names the domain (cross-skill helper invocation) and one concrete action, with "assessing reference rebasing" as a second; coverage stops there. It fits the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensiveness — not 2 (actions are more than minimal/generic) and not 4 (it does not list several specific actions or say what the skill does with the helper).

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: the what ("addresses another skill's helper across a skill boundary") and the when ("when assessing reference rebasing"). It matches the both-present-but-could-be-more-explicit anchor — not 5 because the when is a single narrow jargon phrase with no concrete trigger terms, and not 3 because the when is explicitly stated rather than missing or weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

The only keywords are domain jargon — "helper", "skill boundary", "reference rebasing" — with no natural phrase a user would actually say when needing this skill. It sits between the pure-technical-jargon anchor (1) and the one-or-two-generic-keywords anchor (2): "skill" and "reference" are semi-natural domain terms, but common variations and synonyms are entirely absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"assessing reference rebasing" and cross-skill-boundary helper invocation carve out a clear, narrow niche that virtually no other skill would claim, giving minimal conflict risk. It is not 4, because there is no meaningful overlap with closely related skills — the topic vocabulary is highly distinct even though it is jargon-heavy.