Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence — no general concepts are explained — and every section carries operational content, matching anchor 4's 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation'. Not 5 because the <rules> block and <step_by_step> restate each other (Rule 5 vs step 3, Rule 8 vs step 4, Rule 7 vs step 5) and the second Overview paragraph justifies design choices at some length.

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete: exact paths (`scripts/tasks-overview.py`), an executable command (`python3 scripts/tasks-overview.py`), exact output formats, exit codes, a worked derivation example, and concrete check commands (`find <dir> -name '*.md' | wc -l`, `grep -c`). The absence of a script template is explicitly justified ("This skill ships no script"), but no worked example for the common default case exists, leaving the minor gap of anchor 4 rather than 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step sequence has a reuse gate, a derivation-with-quotes checkpoint before writing code, an independent completeness verification, and an explicit feedback loop (disagree → fix the script → rerun steps 4–5 → escalate and stop), with loud failure handling on exit 2. This matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'; the operation is read-only, so no destructive-cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned file (Overview, Output Contract, Rules, Instructions) with no nested references and no dead-end pointers, and the skill correctly ships no bundle since its content is project-specific procedure. Anchor 4 rather than 5 because at ~140 lines — beyond the under-50-line exception — inline detail like the flowai default layout spec in step 2 could arguably live in a small reference file.

Specificity

Concrete actions are named — "Show the current state of the project's tasks, hiding archived ones, by writing a project-local status script for however the project stores its tasks" — including the distinctive mechanism (write a storage-specific script). Falls just short of anchor 5 because it doesn't enumerate several distinct capabilities like the top example does, and clearly exceeds anchor 3's '1-2 concrete actions'.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both parts: what it does ("Show the current state of the project's tasks, hiding archived ones, by writing a project-local status script") and when ("Use when the user asks which tasks are open or in progress, or how far the work has got") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor 5 example's structure exactly. Third person voice is used correctly throughout.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when the user asks which tasks are open or in progress, or how far the work has got" contains natural user phrasings, matching anchor 4's good-but-incomplete coverage. Not 5 because common synonyms a user might say — 'task list', 'to-do', 'backlog', 'roadmap', 'remaining work' — are absent; not 3 because the phrases present are natural rather than technical jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger 'which tasks are open or in progress' carves a clear status-reporting niche distinct from task-creation or task-editing skills. Minor overlap risk with general task-management or roadmap-maintenance skills keeps it at anchor 4 rather than 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.