Conciseness

The body is ~30 lean lines with zero padding — no explanation of what multi-agent orchestration is, no filler, and every section (When To Use, Apply These Rules, Execution Checklist) earns its place. It matches anchor 5 exactly; there is nothing to trim and no over-explanation that would justify a 4.

Actionability

Some guidance is concrete and checkable — "Verify each agent exists in both `agents` and `listeners[].agents`" names exact config locations — but the rest stays abstract: "Rewrite descriptions to be capability-focused and non-overlapping" and "Provide test prompts" give no examples of a good vs. bad description or a sample test prompt. Not 4 — key executable details (file paths, example rewrites, sample prompts) are missing; not 2 — the checklist steps are specific instructions, not high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step checklist gives a coherent sequence, and step 5 "Provide test prompts to validate routing outcomes" names a checkpoint, but validation is only "provide prompts" — there is no run-validate-fix-retry feedback loop and no guidance on what to do when routing tests fail. Not 4 — checkpoints are weak/implicit with no error-recovery path; not 2 — the sequence is complete and well-defined rather than full of gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

For a sub-50-line skill the single-file organization is appropriate and the sections are clearly labeled, which per the rubric's simple-skill guideline would merit a 5. It drops to 4 because "Apply These Rules" lists `agent-orchestration` and `agent-descriptions` with no resolvable files in the bundle — no references/ or scripts/ directories exist — so those references are neither clearly signaled nor verifiable. Not 3 — content is appropriately inline and navigation is easy; not 5 — the dangling rule references are unresolved.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "agent registration", "agent listener wiring", and "capability-focused agent descriptions" — which goes beyond naming the domain. It falls short of anchor 5 because the opening "Improve multi-agent orchestration in Plano" is generic and coverage of the skill's actual sub-tasks (fallback agents, test prompts) is incomplete, but it is well above anchor 3's 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Both parts are present: "Improve multi-agent orchestration in Plano" answers what, and "Use for agent registration, agent listener wiring, and capability-focused agent descriptions for accurate routing" is an explicit when-clause with concrete triggers. Not 5 — the "what" ("Improve...") is vague about the actual operations; not 3 — the when is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "agent registration", "agent listener wiring", and "accurate routing" are relevant and reasonably natural for this domain, but coverage misses common variations users would actually say (e.g. "set up agents", "routing is wrong", "agent config", file/config names). Not 4 — several natural phrasings are missing; not 2 — more than one or two relevant keywords are present and they are domain-specific rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pairing of "Plano", "agent listener wiring", and "listeners[].agents"-adjacent terminology carves a clear niche that would rarely fire for unrelated skills. Not 5 — "agent descriptions" and "routing" could overlap with generic agent-prompting or routing skills; not 3 — the platform name and listener-specific wiring make it mostly distinct.