Conciseness

The body is ~490 lines whose bulk is a 435-line Lean 4 formal block that restates what the Definition prose and the Rules section each state again — heavy triple redundancy plus philosophical padding ("from Aristotle's notion of practical application"). Not 1 because the formal block carries unique contract content rather than explaining things Claude already knows, but it is noticeably, structurally verbose.

Actionability

The Protocol section's worked nightly-report sheet is genuinely concrete and instructive, but the dominant guidance is formal pseudocode — axioms like observe, mismatches, perform define what to judge without any executable steps. Anchor 3: some concrete guidance, incomplete, formal rather than executable. Not 4 because no commands or copy-paste-ready procedure exists outside the single example.

Workflow Clarity

A real sequence is present (observe reach → judge mismatches → perform relay → present sheet → gate on the person's turn → pass until NothingOpen) with a completion validation (observe-again after writes, non-monotone re-judgment). But checkpoints are implicit, scattered across the FLOW comment, Morphism list, and phase-transition notes rather than laid out as a followable procedure. Not 4 for that gap; not 2 because the sequence is coherent and the completion criterion is explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The single reference (references/round-composition.md) exists, is one level deep, and is well-signaled from the Rules section with explicit read-when conditions — but the 435-line Lean block is exactly the kind of monolithic inline content that belongs in a separate file. Some structure with clear signaling, but the body itself is not appropriately split. Not 4 for the monolith; not 2 because what referencing exists is clean and navigable.

Specificity

The description lists three concrete actions — "check every place it reaches", "show every misfit and omission on one sheet", "carry out the fixes the user settles" — but its domain nouns ("a result", "where it lands", "every intent it was meant to carry") are abstract, leaving coverage incomplete. It sits at anchor 3 rather than 4 because the actions are named but their object is vague, not at 2 because the actions themselves are genuinely specific.

Completeness

The 'what' is stated (check, show on one sheet, carry out fixes) but there is no 'when' — no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 2 because the 'what' is present and reasonably clear, not 4 because the 'when' is wholly absent rather than merely weak.

Trigger Term Quality

The only candidate keywords ("result", "misfit", "fixes") are generic; there are no natural phrases or synonyms a user would actually say when needing this skill, and nothing names the artifacts or situations involved. Not 1 because it is not pure jargon, but clearly below the 'some relevant keywords' bar of 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The misfit-sheet-and-settled-fixes framing carves a distinct niche, but the abstract wording ("a result may not fit where it lands") could plausibly trigger for general review, verification, or refactoring skills. Somewhat specific with residual overlap risk — anchor 3, not 4 since the boundaries are never named.