Conciseness

The body is dense and operational with zero padding of concepts Claude already knows — no basic explanations anywhere. A few justification passages, such as the sham-arm rationale ("Published work on rule files for coding agents found random rules helping as much as curated ones, which makes 'a long structured instruction is present' a live alternative explanation") and the ChatGPT-login refresh-token rotation explanation, carry argumentation that could be trimmed or deferred to a reference. That places it at 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' — not level 5's 'every token earns its place', well above level 3's 'some unnecessary explanation'.

Actionability

The Workflow section gives copy-paste-ready commands for both runners ('cd .claude/skills/realize/scripts', './setup.sh inquire', 'REALIZE_RUNNER=codex ./run.sh inquire', './teardown.sh inquire'), and the one placeholder (export CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN="$(...)") is explicitly justified as the interactive step. It stops short of level 5 because a complete first run also requires reading references/runbook.md — minor gaps, matching 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'.

Workflow Clarity

Setup→run→teardown is clearly sequenced per runner with explicit validation semantics: 'Read integrity first', rows whose integrity falls short are 'not evidence about the protocol' and reprinted separately, and failures 'make run or report exit non-zero while preserving partial transcripts for inspection' — and protocol-prose 'refuses to run when the copy lost none'. It sits between anchors 4 and 5: the checkpoints are present, but what to do when integrity fails (the recovery action) is not stated in the body, so it does not reach level 5's 'feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

References are well-signaled and exactly one level deep, each with a stated purpose ('references/runbook.md — the workflow, where isolation lives, how to widen the matrix', 'references/grader-design.md — why the deterministic axis is behaviour rather than wording', 'scripts/harness.mjs — the runner and the deterministic graders'), and all referenced references/ and scripts/ files exist in the bundle. It is not level 5 because reference-grade detail — the per-target manual-column enumerations for inquire, grasp, and conduct in 'Reading results', and the worked-pair construction details in 'Cases' — is inlined in SKILL.md rather than split out.

Specificity

The description names its niche domain ("runtime evidence that a protocol's formal transition contract is realized") and touches actions only through quoted phrases like "run the type-realization suite" and "measure protocol fulfillment", but never enumerates what the skill actually does (drive runners, capture JSONL traces, grade transitions). It fits the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — not level 4, which requires several listed specific actions; not level 2, because the domain is far more precisely named than generic ('Processes PDF files').

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and rich ("This skill should be used when the user asks to..."), and a 'what' is present ("wants runtime evidence that a protocol's formal transition contract is realized rather than an assessment of downstream artifact quality"), plus explicit invocation guidance ("Invoke explicitly with /realize and a skill argument"). The 'what' is folded into the when-clause rather than stated as its own capability list, so it matches level 4 ('both present; one could be more explicit') rather than level 5's clearly separated what and when.

Trigger Term Quality

Six quoted natural phrases ("run the eval", "test whether the protocol actually works at runtime", "check type realization", "measure protocol fulfillment", "run the type-realization suite", "does the gate actually stop") give good synonym coverage a user would plausibly say in this domain. It falls short of the level-5 'comprehensive coverage including synonyms' anchor because phrasings like "does the contract hold at runtime" or "realization check" are absent, but is clearly above level 3's 'missing common variations'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is distinct and the clause "rather than an assessment of downstream artifact quality" carves an explicit boundary, and "at runtime" separates it from static checking. However the leading generic trigger "run the eval" could collide with other eval-running skills in the same ecosystem, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than level 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.