Conciseness

The body is dense procedural prose with zero explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but boundaries are stated twice ("Never prompt the operator; never answer an approval gate" in §0 and again in Boundaries; queue read-only in §6 and Boundaries) and "the moai MCP broker tools were removed in card t1908" is time-sensitive detail — minor trimming opportunities matching the efficient-with-minor-overreach anchor. Not 5: the duplication means not every token earns its place.

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready commands throughout — "moai factory renew <card-id> --json", "git rev-parse --short HEAD", "moai integration status", "moai decision read --scope card:<id>" — with enumerated outcomes ("renewed, refused-expired, refused-not-holder, or error"), explicit ceilings ("retry at most 3 times", "do not wait a third time"), and a literal decision-record line template; every classified cause has a concrete remedy. Not 4: the few unspecified artifacts (e.g. the "session-handoff resume message") are deliberately delegated to named doctrine files rather than left vague.

Workflow Clarity

The pass is explicitly ordered (§0a renew → §1 measure → §2 classify → §3 remedy → §5 record → §7 output) with validation checkpoints on every branch: the all-three-channels-unchanged-plus-N-minutes stall test, fail-open first observation, transient-vs-determinate adjudication with a retry ceiling, and the two-consecutive-wakes delegate escalation; "Every iteration ends in exactly one of" three terminal states. Not 4: checkpoints are explicit, not implicit; the destructive/batch cap does not apply since the skill is queue-readonly and writes only its own snapshot and records.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so the full ~220-line procedure lives inline, delegating semantics to clearly-signaled one-level-deep external files (".claude/rules/moai/workflow/auto-semantics.md", factory-dispatch.md, cross-session-messaging.md) with each file's role stated — good structure with minor gaps, the 4 anchor. Not 5: navigation leans on dense §-cross-references into the doctrine (§6–7, §11, §14, §5.1) and no actual bundle reference files exist to carry the detail.

Specificity

"measure lane progress on three channels, classify the stall cause, apply the remedy or resolve the judgment through the decision ladder — then record the outcome and report" enumerates five concrete actions covering the full pass lifecycle, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. Not 4: no coverage gaps — the whole measure→classify→remedy→record→report cycle is stated; third-person voice, so no voice penalty applies.

Completeness

The description field gives a clear "what" but contains no "Use when..." clause — only the weak implication "instead of waiting on a reply" — because the explicit trigger guidance was placed in the separate when_to_use field, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline. Not 4: the "when" is absent from the description itself, not merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "lane", "stall", "watchdog", "judgment", and "waiting on a reply" are the natural vocabulary of this ecosystem's operators, but common variations ("stuck", "blocked", "hung", "unattended") are absent — the good-coverage-with-a-few-missing anchor. Not 5 (no synonyms/extensions listed) and not 3 (the phrases present are ones users would actually say).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"One lane stall watchdog iteration" and "the unified --auto doctrine at .claude/rules/moai/workflow/auto-semantics.md" carve out a clear moai-factory niche with ecosystem-specific triggers, so it would virtually never fire for the wrong skill. Matches the clear-niche/minimal-conflict anchor.