Conciseness

The body runs ~450 lines / ~29KB for a single conversational pattern, restating the same control flow at least five times (the FLOW, MORPHISM, PHASE TRANSITIONS, LOOP, and CONVERGENCE sections plus the Lean code), and it assumes no intelligence on the model's part, specifying every micro-judgment as a named axiom. This matches anchor 1 (severely verbose, heavily padded) rather than 2's 'several unnecessary sections', since nearly the whole document is padding relative to the ~40 lines of actionable content.

Actionability

Concrete guidance exists — the `respond` layout ("each line its candidate's description of the situation, then what it rests on... then the condition that would rule it out, then the skill that takes it") and the per-operation `grounding` table — but it is incomplete: no worked example of a round, no sample phrasing of a candidate line, and core behavior is locked in opaque "**Your judgment**" axioms. Anchor 3 (some concrete guidance, missing key details) fits better than 4, whose guidance is mostly executable.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and fully branched (activation check → catalog read once → pass → present round → read turn → close or next pass, in both the FLOW comment and `probe`), with validation checkpoints ("a shown candidate only where that round offered it", the `Owed` precondition before any close) and feedback rules ("a candidate the person said is not theirs is drawn again only on new ground"). It is not 5 because there is no consolidated checklist or error-recovery loop a reader can follow without reconstructing it from dense prose.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the entire ~400-line Lean contract — reference material that clearly belongs in a separate file — is inlined in SKILL.md, so every invocation loads all of it. The body does carry real structure (## Definition, ## Mode Activation, the distinction table, ## Rules, and labeled contract sections), which lifts it above anchor 2's 'minimal structure' to anchor 3's 'content that should be separate is inline'.

Specificity

The description names its domain ("Something feels off and the user cannot name what is stuck") and gives 1-2 concrete output elements ("a shown candidate, their own words, or none shown", "what each rests on and what rules it out"), but never states the skill's own actions. It sits at anchor 3 (domain plus a couple of concrete elements, not comprehensive) rather than 4, which expects several specific actions, and above 2, whose actions are purely generic.

Completeness

Both halves are present: the 'when' is explicit ("Something feels off and the user cannot name what is stuck") and the 'what' is stated as the outcome ("the user can then say what it is... having seen what each rests on and what rules it out"), so the missing-'Use when' cap does not apply. It is not 5 because the 'what' describes the user's resulting ability rather than the skill's operation, and not 3 because the trigger guidance is explicit rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

"Something feels off" and "cannot name what is stuck" are phrases a user might naturally say, but common variations and synonyms ("can't put my finger on it", "I don't know what's wrong", "which one fits?") are absent. This matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than 4's 'a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unnameable-something-off trigger is somewhat distinctive, but "a shown candidate, their own words, or none shown" implies a selection process overlapping with recommendation/triage skills (the body itself must distinguish /onboard), and the description never says candidates correspond to installed skills. Anchor 3 ('somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills') fits better than 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.