Conciseness

The body is ~595 lines, dominated by a ~550-line Lean formal block whose rules are restated in the prose Protocol section ('The sheet', Mode Activation, Rules), producing substantial duplication; sentences like 'Then the cross view, one row per live reading, a merge you drew beside the readings it merges...' pack multiple clauses into nearly unreadable constructions throughout. This matches 'Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'. Not score 1, because it never explains concepts Claude already knows — every part is bespoke to this protocol.

Actionability

There is concrete guidance in the Protocol section — the sheet layout is specified ('Then the goal: what the abstraction is for... Under it, the working candidate — a name and a rule —') and the move structure is described — but the Lean block's operative content is axiom doc comments ('Every `axiom` is one of those judgments — a black box to the contract'), and no worked example of a sheet or dialogue is ever shown. This matches 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'. Not score 4, because without a single rendered example an implementer cannot execute the guidance confidently; not score 2, because the sheet and move composition are specified in structured, specific detail.

Workflow Clarity

A real sequence exists (FLOW block: start → notActivated → sheet per utterance → crystallized/holding, plus Mode Activation, Protocol, and the seam/converge entries) and internal checkpoints are defined (notActivated, Reaches, ClosingSupported, Overturned), but the sequence is scattered across a Lean structural recursion, comment blocks, and prose, requiring the reader to reconstruct it. This matches 'Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'. Not score 4, because the sequencing is implicit in code rather than presented as a followable workflow; not score 2, because the flow is coherent and the recognition/overturn checks are explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The single bundle reference, references/round-composition.md (a real 15-line file), is well signaled with explicit load conditions ('Read `references/round-composition.md` before composing when terminology must remain stable, wording must be carried unchanged...') and is one level deep — but ~550 lines of Lean formalism are inlined in SKILL.md where the prose contract already covers usage, matching 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'. Not score 4, because the bulk of the content is a monolithic inline block rather than an overview pointing to detail; not score 2, because headings and a clearly signaled reference do provide navigable structure.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Cases at hand seem to share what no one named yet") but the only actions listed are the user's outcomes — "the user can then name it, say which cases it takes in and leaves out, and recognize it as serving their goal" — not what the skill actually does (e.g., proposing a candidate name and rule, drawing a cross-view sheet). It matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' better than score 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions by the skill itself.

Completeness

The 'when' is only weakly implied by the opening state description ("Cases at hand seem to share what no one named yet, or what a name in use no longer says") with no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. The 'what' is present but stated only as user outcomes rather than the skill's actions, so it does not reach anchor 4; it is above anchor 2 because both what and when are present in some form.

Trigger Term Quality

Only a couple of generic keywords ("cases", "name", "recognize") appear; the natural phrases a user would actually say — "what do these examples have in common", "help me name this concept", "find the pattern in these cases" — are absent, matching 'One or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say'. Not score 1, since the terms are relevant to the domain rather than pure jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — crystallizing an unnamed abstraction from concrete cases, including reinterpreting "what a name in use no longer says" — is distinct from typical document/git/data skills, giving 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. Not score 5, because the framing could overlap with general concept-clarification or categorization skills and the obscure phrasing may fail to trigger when intended; not score 3, because the scenario is specific enough to avoid broad conflicts.