Conciseness

The same invariants are restated across four layers — the Definition bullet ("The boundary stands in one of two ways — the user accepts it as it stands, at that depth..."), the FLOW comment, the Protocol bullet ("When the user accepts the boundary as it stands and no turn of theirs is still owed, stop at that depth"), and the Closing rule — with 100+ word sentences throughout the ~600-line body. The material is novel vocabulary rather than pre-known concepts, so anchor 1 does not fit, but the redundant restatement and padding clearly match anchor 2.

Actionability

The Protocol section gives specific behavioral directives ("At the first round, show the relevant whole draft before asking the user to choose its applicable parts"; "When the user opens an axis, show the concrete content, assumptions, alternatives, and dependent consequences") and the Lean block is declared executable ("It is core Lean 4 and elaborates as written"), but no worked example of a round, a map entry, or a sample dialogue appears anywhere. Anchor 3 ("some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details") fits; anchor 4 would require examples covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

A complete sequence exists (observe → readout → present whole map → rounds → converge) with checkpoints encoded in `owed`, `awaits`, and "nothing is committed from the unsettled reading", and the skill is neither destructive nor batch so no cap applies. However, the sequence is scattered across the `bound`/`status` definitions, the FLOW comment, and Protocol bullets, and many checkpoints are implicit rather than stated as validate-and-branch steps, matching anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's clearly sequenced checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

There is one real, well-signaled, one-level-deep reference — "read `references/round-composition.md` before presenting it" (the file exists and is conditionally loaded) — which exceeds anchor 3's unclear-signaling bar. But the ~450-line Lean contract is inlined wholesale in SKILL.md, which is exactly the "content that should be separate is inline" pattern, keeping it at anchor 3 rather than 4.

Specificity

Phrases like "they can then see each decision, what rests on it, its cost if wrong, what settled it" enumerate outcome states rather than concrete actions the skill performs, and no domain-naming verb-first action list appears. It sits above anchor 1 (several specific deliverables are named) but below anchor 3, which expects 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present — "The user cannot yet see what a task needs decided, or what to keep or entrust" states when, and "they can then see each decision... and what stays open and with whom" states what. Anti-drift check against anchor 4: that anchor expects a crisp what plus an explicit when, whereas here both are delivered through one convoluted negative-condition sentence with no concrete trigger phrases, so it falls below 4 while exceeding anchor 3's "when only weakly implied" in presence but not in clarity.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "what a task needs decided", "what to keep or entrust", and "what stays open" are topical but phrased so stylized that users would rarely say them verbatim, and common natural variants (scope, boundary, delegate, requirements) are absent. Anchor 2 ("one or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say") is the best fit.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The entrustment/decision-record framing ("what settled it, and what stays open and with whom") carves a distinct niche from document- or data-processing skills, but it overlaps planning/scoping skills and the unnatural trigger phrasing makes correct matching uncertain. Anchor 3 ("somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills") fits; the niche is too narrow for anchor 2 and not clean enough for anchor 4.