Conciseness

The body is telegraphic, imperative, and free of concept explanation Claude already knows ("A prompt alone is not proof", "Missing validation is not a pass"), earning 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation'. It is not a 5 because of small redundancy: "Missing validation is not a pass" is restated in Gotchas after the Validation section, and blocked/unsafe-to-close conditions are repeated across Preconditions, Procedure, and Failure Handling.

Actionability

Concrete elements are strong: exact validation commands ("python3 Plugins/harness-engineering/skills/he-eval-report/scripts/validate_eval_report.py"), a precise output path pattern, enumerated closure-recommendation values, and required report fields. It is not a 5 because several procedure steps are abstract checklists ("Apply first-principles, XP, gate-selection, plugin-hook capability... checks") whose substance is delegated to external contracts, and no report snippet or filled example is shown inline.

Workflow Clarity

The 11-step Procedure is clearly sequenced, the Validation section requires recording "exact pass|fail|blocked outcomes" with explicit commands, and a fail-fast feedback loop is spelled out ("stop at the first failed gate, fix or classify it, then rerun"), with Failure Handling classifying gaps into Blocked/Needs rework/Unsafe to close. This matches the anchor 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'.

Progressive Disclosure

The References section gives per-file "Read when <condition>" signals (well-signaled, one level deep), and local bundle files (references/contract.yaml, references/evals.yaml, references/source-prompt-preservation.md) verify as real, substantive content. It is not a 5 because the flat ~15-entry reference list is long enough to warrant the deferred-context index it already cites, and many `../../references/...` paths escape the skill package, making them unverifiable from the bundle.

Specificity

"Generate closure-grade HE eval and drift proof for one execution slice" names the domain plus two concrete actions (eval report, drift proof), matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor. It is not a 4 because the description omits the skill's other concrete capabilities (validation gates, side-effect checks, media proof), and not a 2 because the actions go beyond minimal or generic.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: what = "Generate closure-grade HE eval and drift proof for one execution slice", when = "Use when Linear, milestone, or source-prompt closure needs validation evidence" with three concrete triggers. It sits between anchors 4 and 5 — the 'when' is fully explicit (5-like) but the 'what' is thin and jargon-dependent ("closure-grade", "execution slice" undefined) — so 4 rather than 5, and clearly above 3 since the 'when' clause is present and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers like "closure", "drift", "validation evidence", "Linear", "milestone", and "source-prompt" are the natural phrases within the HE ecosystem, but the description offers no variations or synonyms (e.g., "safe to close", "completion", "eval report"), fitting the 'some relevant keywords, missing common variations' anchor rather than the good-coverage anchor of 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"HE eval", "drift proof", and "Linear... closure" carve a distinct niche unlikely to catch generic skills, but sibling HE skills (e.g., he-linear-plan and other closure/validation skills the body hands off to) share the Linear/closure vocabulary, giving minor overlap risk — anchor 4, not the minimal-conflict anchor of 5.