Conciseness

The body is mostly lean with terse sections (When To Use, Inputs, Outputs, Procedure, Constraints) and assumes Claude's competence without over-explaining concepts, though the Procedure and Constraints sections repeat rule material also found in referenced files, leaving minor trim potential that keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

It gives concrete, executable guidance: a deterministic decision order, explicit stage routing rules, named output fields (selected_stage, matched_rule, confidence), and a blocked-with-missing-input fallback, but the routing rules are instructions rather than copy-paste artifacts and the actual routing map lives in an external file, leaving minor gaps at 4 rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

The Procedure is a clearly ordered 10-step sequence with an explicit validation/feedback gate: 'If still ambiguous after applying the table, return blocked with exactly one missing input' and a Validation section that fails fast at the first failed gate, matching the anchor 5 example of clear sequence with explicit checkpoints and a recovery loop.

Progressive Disclosure

The body references several one-level-deep files and signals some with 'Read when:' conditions, but the local references/ bundle files (contract.yaml, evals.yaml, task-profile.json) are empty path stubs rather than real content, the external ../../references/*.md targets do not exist, and one reference line is malformed (an inline 'Read when:' clause stranded outside a list item), so structure is present but reliability and organization are compromised at 3.

Specificity

The description names the domain (route ambiguous HE requests to one lifecycle stage) and one concrete action (route), plus lists several concrete lifecycle verbs (start, resume, plan, implement, review, debug, schedule a heartbeat, resolve domain terminology), but routing is a single action category rather than multiple distinct concrete operations, so it sits at anchor 3 rather than 4.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('Route ambiguous Harness Engineering requests to one lifecycle stage') and when ('when users ask where to start, resume, plan, implement, review, debug, schedule a heartbeat, or resolve domain terminology') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor 5 example.

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces natural user phrases like 'where to start', 'resume', 'plan', 'review', 'debug', and 'schedule a heartbeat', which users would genuinely say, but it misses some synonyms and file/extension-style trigger tokens, placing it just above the midpoint at 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Harness Engineering' niche and the specific lifecycle-stage trigger list make it largely distinct and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, but it could still overlap with adjacent HE lifecycle skills, so it is mostly distinct rather than a fully isolated niche (4 not 5).