Conciseness

The ~550-line body restates the same protocol at least four times — the prose Definition paragraph, the FLOW comment, the MORPHISM comment, and the Lean definitions, plus a Core Principle section recap — and single strings run to hundreds of words (the `present` grounding entry alone is ~450 words of nested clauses). It avoids explaining known concepts, so it is above score 1, but the heavy redundancy and baroque run-on prose fit 'Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' rather than score 3's 'mostly efficient'.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance must still be concrete, yet there is not a single worked instance: no example vignette narration, no sample rendered map row, no example round or dialogue fragment. The Lean block is a formal specification whose judgments are explicitly 'black boxes... yours to make', i.e. pseudocode-grade specification rather than executable guidance, which fits 'Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; it is below score 3 because behavioral rules, however detailed, are never instantiated into something copy-adaptable.

Workflow Clarity

A real sequence exists (gather → relay_spec → instantiate → carry → present → fuse → constitute → harvest → cleanup → assemble) and validation checkpoints for the destructive discard step are explicit ('the verification step closing the same sequence — each path verified absent', 'harvest read before discard'), so it is above score 2. But the sequence is scattered across three redundant restatements (FLOW, MORPHISM, the `preview` definition) and expressed in dense 100+ word sentences, leaving the reader to reassemble it — fitting 'Steps listed but [clarity gaps]; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' at score 3 rather than score 4's 'clear sequence'.

Progressive Disclosure

The one bundle file (references/round-composition.md) exists, is one level deep, and is clearly signaled with a concrete conditional trigger ('Read references/round-composition.md before composing when terminology must remain stable, wording must be carried unchanged...'), so it is above score 2. But the body is a monolithic wall of formal specification where large parts (the Lean block, TOOL GROUNDING) are inlined in SKILL.md rather than split out, fitting 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline' at score 3 rather than score 4.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('about to commit to one of several directions they cannot judge from descriptions') but never states what the skill actually does — building disposable placeholder previews, rendering a contrast map, discarding probes — only the person's end state: 'they can then say what each means for their purpose, on what ground, and which one they take'. This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is above score 1 because the domain is concrete rather than pure abstraction, and below score 3 because no 1–2 concrete skill actions are listed.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicitly present as an equivalent trigger clause ('The user is about to commit to one of several directions they cannot judge from descriptions'), so the missing-'Use when' cap of 3 is not what binds here; what binds is that the 'what' is only weakly implied — the skill's actions (relay a reading, build placeholder probes, show a map, discard) never appear, so the description is the inverse of the score-3 anchor ('clear what, weak when'). It is below score 4 because a clear 'what' is missing, and above score 2 because the 'when' is explicit rather than absent.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ('commit', 'directions', 'judge from descriptions') but the natural phrases a user would actually say — 'I can't decide between these options', 'what would each look like', 'compare approaches', 'I'd have to see it' — are absent. This fits 'One or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say'; it is above score 1 (some domain terms are present) and below score 3 (no common variations or synonyms of user phrasing are included).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The scenario ('cannot judge from descriptions', pre-commitment direction choice) is a genuinely narrow niche, but the abstract, scenario-shaped phrasing with no concrete trigger terms leaves it overlapping with generic decision-support or comparison skills. This fits 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'; below score 4 because the absence of distinct trigger phrases makes reliable discrimination unlikely, above score 2 because the domain is not broad.