Conciseness

The body includes a 12-line Table of Contents for a ~90-line document and restates the no-silent-drift rule across four sections ("Do not silently preserve mismatched names", "Treat check-name drift as a contract bug", "Accepting mismatches with no documented mapping rationale", "treat that as unresolved policy debt"). This is more than the minor trimmable instances of anchor 4 but stops short of anchor 2 because there is no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows and every section is short.

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands are provided ("bash .codex/skills/ci-check-name-parity/scripts/report_check_name_drift.sh", "npm test", a full rg invocation) plus concrete workflow steps. It misses anchor 5 because the rg validation hardcodes a brittle, time-sensitive list of check names and no example shows what a documented intentional mapping should look like.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow has an explicit validation step ("Re-run repo validation after the rename or mapping change lands"), a fail-fast feedback loop ("stop at the first failed gate and fix it before continuing"), and error-recovery guidance in Failure mode ("If repo tests fail after a rename, do not claim the policy update is complete"), matching the anchor-5 pattern of validate -> fix -> re-validate rather than the minor-gaps profile of anchor 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The References section signals each bundle file with a purpose ("Read when: you need the source map and naming rule") and every referenced file exists one level deep (references/comparison-matrix.md, references/contract.yaml, references/evals.yaml, scripts/report_check_name_drift.sh), with the body staying a genuine overview. This matches anchor 5's clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references and exceeds anchor 4, which allows minor organization gaps.

Specificity

"Validate and align required-check names across GitHub workflows, .harness/ci-required-checks.json, harness.contract.json, and repo docs" names two concrete actions applied to a fully enumerated set of surfaces, matching the several-specific-actions-with-minor-gaps anchor (e.g., documenting intentional mappings is only covered in the body). It falls short of anchor 5, which expects multiple distinct concrete actions, but exceeds anchor 3 because coverage of the target surfaces is comprehensive rather than partial.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both: what ("Validate and align required-check names across GitHub workflows, .harness/ci-required-checks.json, harness.contract.json, and repo docs") and when ("Use this skill when CI check names or required-check policy changes") with a concrete trigger clause. This matches the anchor-5 example pattern of explicit what plus explicit when with concrete triggers, exceeding anchor 4 whose 'when' is generic.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "CI check names", "required-check policy", and "GitHub workflows" are present, giving good keyword coverage. It is not anchor 5 because common variations users would say — "GitHub Actions", "branch protection", "status checks" — are missing, but it clearly exceeds anchor 3, which requires missing common variations or synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche — required-check name parity across specific named policy files — with triggers ("CI check names or required-check policy changes") that would not fire for unrelated skills. Conflict risk is minimal, matching anchor 5; anchor 4 would require some overlap with closely related skills, which is not the case here.