Conciseness

The body avoids basic-concept padding and uses terse imperative prose, but the untrusted-content/safety-boundary policy is stated four times (Outputs twice, Failure Mode, and Validation), and local-vs-hosted/PR-closeout reporting is repeated across Outputs and Execution Boundaries. This is more than the minor trimming of anchor 4, though not the padded verbosity of anchor 2.

Actionability

Provides a concrete YAML output schema, copy-pasteable validation commands (e.g., "./bin/ask skills audit Skills/agent-ops/improve-agent-native --level strict --json --robot"), and per-task reference routing. Minor gaps remain: the 0-100 score computation is fully delegated to a reference with no in-body summary, and some workflow steps stay at judgment level ("2-3 surfaces that directly affect the requested decision").

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops ("preserve the failed command shape and the final passing command", "allow one corrected invocation", "A genuine target validation failure blocks the affected claim"), plus a dedicated Failure Mode section for error recovery. This matches the top anchor's validate-fix-retry structure.

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep, well-signaled with explicit load conditions ("Load references/harness-readiness-rubric.md when scoring or benchmarking"), and all cited files exist in the bundle. However, the body is a full ~210-line runbook rather than an overview: edge-case output policy (safety-boundary classifications, PR closeout, proof-gap rules) inlined in Outputs is content that could live in a reference file, keeping it below anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — "audit repo agent compatibility, review AGENTS.md, find missing test/build commands, evaluate docs quality, assess tool/action parity, or produce a file-evidence scorecard with specific fixes" — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities. Anchor 4 ('minor gaps in coverage') does not fit since the action list spans the skill's full scope.

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' ("Check if a repository or agent-facing product surface is ready for AI coding agents... produce a file-evidence scorecard with specific fixes") and 'when' with an explicit "Use when you need to..." clause listing concrete triggers. Both halves are explicit, matching the top anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural phrases users would say ("audit repo agent compatibility", "AGENTS.md", "test/build commands", "docs quality", "scorecard"), but a few common variations are missing from the description itself (e.g., "AI-ready", "agent-friendly", or product names like Claude/Copilot/Codex/MCP, which only appear in the body). Anchor 5 requires comprehensive synonyms, which this does not quite reach.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (agent-native readiness auditing) with distinct triggers ("AGENTS.md", "tool/action parity", "agent compatibility") and minimal conflict risk; even the broadly-worded "evaluate docs quality" trigger is scoped by the agent-readiness framing. Not score 4 because no closely related skill would plausibly capture these triggers.