Conciseness

The body avoids explaining known concepts but repeats the downstream-ownership boundary roughly five times across Outputs ("Downstream lanes own review reports, eval artifacts, package outputs, runtime evidence, commits, and publication receipts"), Workflow step 9, Gotchas, the Execution Boundaries section, and Validation; "a route decision ... is not proof that a skill is installed, visible in Codex, passing evals" also appears twice. This is more than minor trimming, matching anchor 3 ("could be tightened") rather than anchor 4.

Actionability

The skill provides a copy-paste-ready YAML handoff template with explicit enums (selected_lane, mode, first_principles_check result), a numbered routing table covering create, capture, harden, analyze, refactor, install, and fork-block requests, exact reference paths, and verbatim validation commands ("bash Infrastructure/scripts/validation-and-linting/validate_skill_authoring_family.sh", "./bin/ask skills external-review ... --audit-level compat --json"). This fully matches anchor 5 for an instruction-only skill.

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is a clearly sequenced 9-step decision procedure with a precedence rule ("Explicit lane names win unless the user names multiple lanes or asks for an unsafe action"), a Failure Mode section covering blocked-state recovery, and explicit validation steps ("Stop at the first failed required gate ... do not sync, commit, publish, or install until it is fixed or explicitly blocked"). The router is read-only, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply; this matches anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

All five referenced files exist in references/ (contract.yaml, evals.yaml, task-profile.json, discovery-interview.md, routing-policy.md), are one level deep, and each is gated by a precise "Read when" condition, with the instruction "Load only the reference needed for the selected routing question". Policy detail is correctly deferred to references (routing-policy.md defers further to source handles), matching anchor 5.

Specificity

"Review Codex skill-management intent to select its downstream owner" names the domain and one to two concrete actions (review intent, select owner) but does not enumerate the full set of actions or the handoff output it returns. This matches anchor 3 rather than 4, which expects several specific listed actions.

Completeness

The what is clear ("Review Codex skill-management intent to select its downstream owner") and the when is explicit with three concrete conditions including a negative boundary ("Use when the owner is ambiguous or the user explicitly asks for routing, not when a downstream lane is already clear"). Both are clearly and explicitly answered, matching anchor 5 rather than anchor 4, whose when-clause "could be more explicit or specific" does not apply here.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like "skill", "routing", and "owner is ambiguous" are present, but the phrasing leans on internal jargon ("downstream lane", "downstream owner") and misses natural user variations such as "which lane owns this" or "route this skill request". Anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) is the best fit.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a narrow niche (Codex skill-management routing) and its exclusion clause ("not when a downstream lane is already clear") actively prevents firing when an execution lane is already determined. This is a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5.