Conciseness

Mostly efficient, project-specific operational content, but the mock mechanism is explained twice (section 6 'Mock mechanism (ACP): scenario.mocks is a static one-response-per-tool map' vs section 6.3 'Mocks fire on PATH resolution, not command shape') and section 1 'Context & Philosophy' is conceptual padding that could be tightened. Not 2: the bulk is non-obvious framework knowledge Claude cannot be assumed to know, not generic library explanation.

Actionability

Concrete and executable: a copy-paste-ready TypeScript 'Template (mod.ts)' with exact ids and checklist contracts, specific debug commands ('ls <workDir>/mockbin/ should show an executable <tool> (mode 755)'), exact directory layouts, and real example phrases. Minor gaps: step 5 'Register: Add the scenario to your Runner's registry' gives no concrete mechanism, and sections 6 vs 6.3 give contradictory relay-gating instructions. Not 5 because of those gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequences with explicit validation and feedback loops: the 5-step authoring workflow, the 7-step execution loop, the debug checklist gated by 'Only after steps 1–4 pass is it safe to edit SKILL.md', and RED-phase verification. Not 5: section 6's checklist step 3 calls the '[benchmock-<6-hex>]' sentinel the 'Only robust relay signal' while section 6.3 states such 'Prefix-style framing tokens ([benchmock-xxx], <TOOL>-MOCK:) fail as relay signals' — an internal contradiction that undermines which validation to follow.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is sectioned and one asset link is well-signaled ('[examples/scenario-example.md](assets/scenario-example.md)' exists in the bundle), but '[acceptance-tests/config.json](acceptance-tests/config.json)' dangles — no such file exists in the bundle — and 'references/PROMPTS.md' (Judge prompt material, clearly relevant to section 4.4 'The Judge (Evaluator)') is never referenced from the body at all. Not 4: an orphaned bundle file plus a broken reference is more than a minor organization gap.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'Build and run benchmarks that measure an AI AGENT's behaviour' plus named artifacts 'scenarios, checklists, judged runs' — but coverage has minor gaps (no mention of environment setup, judging logic, or result reporting). Not 3: more than 1-2 actions are named; not 5: the action list is not comprehensive.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('Build and run benchmarks that measure an AI AGENT's behaviour — scenarios, checklists, judged runs') and when ('Use when authoring or evaluating agent benchmark scenarios'), with concrete trigger phrases reinforced by explicit exclusions ('Not for code performance benchmarks (deno bench, criterion) or ordinary test suites'). Matches the 5 anchor pattern directly; the 'when' clause is explicit, so 4 does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'benchmarks', 'AI AGENT's behaviour', 'scenarios', 'checklists', 'authoring or evaluating agent benchmark scenarios', plus tool names in the exclusion clause ('deno bench, criterion'). A few natural variations users might say are missing (e.g. 'evals', 'agent testing', 'agent evaluation'), so it falls short of the 5 anchor's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — behavioral benchmarking of AI agents — with an explicit negative boundary that separates it from the nearest confusion candidates (code performance benchmarks, ordinary test suites). Minimal conflict risk; the exclusion clause is exactly the mechanism that distinguishes it, so 4 ('minor overlap risk') undersells it.