Conciseness

The body is dense with instructions and contains no padding, no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, and no fluff — e.g. the mode table delivers one line per mode. It falls short of 5 due to minor redundancy ("never create or mirror it under another assistant namespace" and "do not create a duplicate board under another assistant namespace" repeat the same rule) and a few over-compressed sentences such as "The three ref-11 controls and task Methodology/Anti-drift cron sections are ungated in both spec modes", where "both spec modes" is never defined in the body.

Actionability

Mostly concrete: exact artifact paths (`.codex/agents/task-tracker.toml`, `.codex/features/board.md`, `TASK_TEMPLATE.md`, etc.), a precise mode-resolution rule with an explicit alias blacklist, and template pointers for the generation phases. Not 5 because the P1 analysis step ("Analyze repository domains, documentation, release conventions") stays high-level and its how-to lives in `references/01-analysis.md`, which the body never links, and the verification step similarly never points to its detail file.

Workflow Clarity

The P0→P5.5 phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation: step 7 verifies "paths, TOML, skill frontmatter, folder/status invariants, board counts, link integrity, and idempotence", destructive modes confirm first with task counts and an `uninstall` alternative, and "run the `status` inventory afterwards as the proof" adds a post-action checkpoint. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop telling Claude what to do when verification fails.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview that appropriately pushes detail into reference files and clearly signals three of them (references/02, 03, 11 — all real files), but 10 of the 13 bundle files (01, 04–10, 12, 13) and scripts/scope-guard.sh are never mentioned anywhere in the body, and reference files chain to each other (ref 03 cites "ref 11" and "ref 05"), leaving most of the bundle unreachable by explicit navigation from SKILL.md. This matches the 'references present but not clearly signaled' anchor better than score 4's 'minor organization gaps'.

Specificity

"Creates a Codex file-based task board" names the domain and one concrete action, but the skill's seven operating modes (status, install, upgrade, enable, disable, uninstall, purge) are entirely absent, so coverage is not comprehensive. It is above a score-2 'names the domain, generic action' anchor because 'Creates... task board' is a concrete deliverable, but below score 4 which expects several specific actions listed.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ("Creates a Codex file-based task board"), but the 'when' is only the negative invocation constraint "Explicit user invocation only" — it states a trigger discipline without naming any natural trigger situation or phrase a user would say. Per the guideline, absence of a 'Use when...' clause or equivalent positive trigger guidance caps this at 3; it is not 2 because both what and a when-statement are present.

Trigger Term Quality

"task board" and "Codex" are terms a user might naturally say, but common variations and synonyms ("task tracking", "todo list", "backlog", "kanban", "progress board") are missing. This matches the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor rather than score 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Codex file-based task board" plus "Explicit user invocation only" carves a mostly distinct niche and suppresses accidental auto-triggering, leaving only minor overlap risk with generic task-management skills. Not 5 because "task board" on its own still overlaps the task-management space should the Codex qualifier be missed.