Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — the profile table, dimension list, and gotchas are project-specific knowledge rather than re-taught concepts, and the opening definition of a policy profile is necessary context. It falls short of the lean anchor only because the paragraph after the customization code block ("Use register_label_generator(canonical_label, fn) to swap one label's surrogate; use register_clinical_provider(provider)...") restates what the annotated code directly above already demonstrates.

Actionability

The Quick start is copy-paste ready for three distinct profiles and the customization snippet is concrete (a real hospital_mrn generator with signature shown), but `register_clinical_provider(MyClinicalProvider)` references an undefined placeholder class, so that snippet is not executable as-is. This is exactly the 'mostly executable with minor gaps' anchor rather than fully copy-paste ready.

Workflow Clarity

The 'Choosing: map regulation → profile' section gives an unambiguous decision sequence, and verification is addressed by hand-off ("Verify coverage: auditing-deidentification-runs (audit=True)"), but no validation checkpoint is executed inline — the user must consult the paired skill to verify a run. Fits 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps', not the explicit inline validate-fix-retry loop of level 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clear and well-ordered (quick start, profile table, decision map, customization, hand-offs, gotchas), with sibling-skill and source-path references clearly signaled (openmed/core/policies/<name>.json). No bundle files exist, so everything is inlined; the core selection table earns its place, but the standards citations and deep edge-case/legal detail could live in a reference file to keep the overview leaner — 'good structure; minor organization gaps'.

Specificity

"Select and customize OpenMed's seven bundled privacy policy profiles for de-identification, and build custom surrogate generators" names multiple concrete, distinct actions (select profiles, customize via AnonymizerConfig, register custom surrogate generators), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. It sits above the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor because every capability the body delivers is named.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the what ("Select and customize... profiles... and build custom surrogate generators") and the when ("Use when the user asks which policy fits... wants to pass policy= to deidentify()... needs to keep quasi-identifiers for research, or must register a custom MRN/name/address surrogate provider"). Matches the anchor for concrete what-and-when trigger phrases; the level-4 anchor's weaker 'when' clause clearly undersells this text.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural regulatory and API phrases users would actually say are well covered ("HIPAA Safe Harbor", "Expert Determination", "GDPR", "PIPEDA", "research limited dataset", "quasi-identifiers", "policy=", "deidentify()"), but a few common synonyms like "PHI", "pseudonymize", or "anonymize" are absent. This falls between the 'comprehensive coverage' (5) and 'good coverage, a few natural terms missing' (4) anchors, noticeably above the midpoint.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenMed's seven bundled privacy policy profiles" carves out a clear niche with named regulations, and it explicitly delineates siblings ("Pairs with OpenMed deidentifying-clinical-text and generating-synthetic-surrogates"). However, "build custom surrogate generators" overlaps the paired generating-synthetic-surrogates skill's territory, giving minor overlap risk with a closely related skill — the level-4 anchor rather than 5.