Conciseness

The ~27-line body is lean and efficient: every bullet in 'When to activate' and 'Key rules' carries unique information (file paths, function names, policy directives) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Matches anchor 5 — every token earns its place.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for a review skill: 'All path construction routes through src/apm_cli/utils/path_security.py', 'route through integration/cleanup.py:remove_stale_deployed_files() (3 safety gates)', 'never raw os.getenv', with exact symbols and one fail-closed directive. Not 5 because key details are referenced but unexplained — what the '3 safety gates' are and how AuthResolver is invoked are left as lookups with no pointer.

Workflow Clarity

As a single-purpose review skill the structure is unambiguous: a clearly delimited 'When to activate' section followed by the 'Key rules' to enforce, each rule phrased as a checkable directive. Not 5 because there is no verification or sign-off checkpoint (e.g., how to confirm each rule is satisfied before approving a change), which leaves the review sequence implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines with well-organized sections and no inlined bulk that belongs in separate files, which by itself would score 5. The single reference — '[Supply chain security expert persona](../../agents/supply-chain-security-expert.agent.md)' — is a dangling link to a nonexistent file outside the skill directory, breaking navigation and violating the one-level-deep, clearly-signaled pattern.

Specificity

The description names concrete domain objects — 'dependency resolution, lockfile schema, package downloaders, signature/integrity checks, file integration cleanup' — plus specific threat terms ('dependency confusion, typosquatting, malicious packages, token leakage'), but it states no capability actions the skill itself performs. Not 4 because unlike 'Lists several specific actions', every concrete noun is a trigger condition, not a skill action.

Completeness

The explicit trigger clause 'Activate when reviewing or modifying...' answers 'when' in detail, but the 'what' — what this skill actually does — is entirely absent; the description is only a trigger condition. This matches anchor 2 ('only when is present without what'). Not 3 because anchor 3 requires a clear 'what' to be present, and none is stated; not 1 because the 'when' half is detailed and explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural developer phrases like 'dependency resolution', 'lockfile schema', 'signature/integrity checks', 'dependency confusion', 'typosquatting', and 'token leakage'. Not 5 because it misses common synonyms and extensions a user might naturally say ('supply chain', 'checksum', 'provenance', 'requirements.txt' style file names).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — APM package-management supply-chain security — with distinct triggers ('dependency confusion, typosquatting, malicious packages, token leakage') unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not 5 because the open-ended catch-all 'or anything that could expose APM to...' invites some overlap with a general code-security or review skill.