Conciseness

The ~27-line body is lean with every token earning its place: "Reported gains cluster in the first two", "Time saved typing is often time spent reading". It assumes Claude's competence, explains nothing the model already knows, and includes no padding, matching anchor 5 exactly.

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill, the guidance is fully concrete: exact questions to ask ("Faster than what?"), specific diagnostic criteria (the "vibe coding" tell), a concrete recommendation ("a two-week pilot on one real backlog slice"), a defined output table, and a worked example. Per the scoring notes, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable — anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The five steps are clearly numbered and sequenced, each feeding the defined output table with an example. It sits at anchor 4 ('clear sequence... minor validation gaps') rather than 5 because no explicit validation/checkpoint steps exist; it stays above 3 since the sequence is fully coherent and the task is non-destructive, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references — verified: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist and the body references no files. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, well-organized sections (Steps, Output format, Example) alone warrant anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names its domain ("a vendor's productivity claim about an AI coding assistant") and one concrete action ("Evaluate... against the evidence checklist"), but does not enumerate multiple specific actions. Anchor 3 fits: domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive — it stays below 4 because no list of several specific capabilities is given, and above 2 because the action named is concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the what is "Evaluate a vendor's productivity claim about an AI coding assistant against the evidence checklist" and the when is "Use when someone quotes a percentage gain and asks whether the team should adopt the tool" — a concrete trigger scenario. The 'when' clause is as explicit as the anchor-5 example, so it does not fall to anchor 4 ('when could be more specific').

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases users would actually say are present: "quotes a percentage gain", "asks whether the team should adopt the tool", "productivity claim". Coverage is good but common variations (e.g. "X% faster", "should we buy/license Copilot-style tools", "ROI") are missing, matching anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (evaluating vendor productivity claims about AI coding assistants) is clear with distinct triggers (percentage-gain quotes, adoption questions), so conflict with other skills is minimal. It clearly matches anchor 5 rather than anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.