Conciseness

The body is dense with no padding of concepts Claude already knows — the measure, its limits, the /realize boundary, and design rationale all earn their place. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because motivational framing ("the items that come up this way can be ones nobody would have thought of at the start") and some convoluted rationale sentences could be trimmed without loss.

Actionability

The runbook block gives copy-paste-ready commands with a dry-run variant, concrete prerequisites ("Node 22+ and the runner's CLI on PATH"), and a model-free test command, plus an explicit pointer to references/runbook.md. Anchor 4 fits because the <model>/<run>/<cell> argument formats and the note/turn loop mechanics are deferred to the reference rather than shown, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The command sequence plan→setup→turn→note→report→teardown is clearly ordered, and real validation checkpoints are present ("--dry-run # argument check only", the frozen-sha refusal where "every command that spends refuses when one has changed", budget caps), so the destructive/batch cap does not apply. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the turn loop ("then --reply <file> | --go, as the oracle says") and the note-rerun feedback loop are only implicit here, with their details in the runbook.

Progressive Disclosure

Verified against the actual bundle: the single reference (references/runbook.md) exists and is clearly signaled with its contents enumerated ("the turn procedure, how to write the notes' items, authentication and isolation per runner"), every script path used in the commands resolves in the bundle, and the split is appropriate — SKILL.md carries the measure and design, the runbook carries procedure. This matches anchor 5: clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "run the outcome eval", "paired bare vs protocol", "count what the AI asked or presented", and surfacing from transcripts which decisions reached the user as a question or something to recognize. It falls short of anchor 5 because the actions are partly framed as quoted user phrases rather than a capability list and coverage is partial (the plan/setup/turn/report/teardown workflow is absent); it exceeds anchor 3 because it names the domain plus more than two concrete actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'when' with a "should be used when the user asks to..." clause carrying concrete trigger phrases, and 'what' with "wants to see, from transcripts, which decisions reached the user as a question or something to recognize instead of having to be written into the opening prompt" plus "Project-local contributor tooling". Both are explicit and concrete, matching anchor 5; anchor 4's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply since the when-clause is maximally explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Multiple verbatim natural trigger phrases ("run the outcome eval", "which decisions did the protocol surface", "count what the AI asked or presented", "does /inquire surface what the request left out") give good keyword coverage a user would naturally say. It fits anchor 4 rather than 5 because a few natural variants (e.g., comparing arms, eval transcripts) are missing, but coverage is well beyond the 'some relevant keywords' of anchor 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The vocabulary is highly niche — "outcome eval", "paired bare vs protocol", "/realize", "/inquire", "Project-local contributor tooling" — establishing a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with any general skill, matching anchor 5.