Conciseness

Efficient and dense — procedural instructions with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — but a few things could be trimmed: the reference files are pointed to twice (in Phase 3 and again in the "Bundled references" table), the anchoring rules partially restate the label table, and the "Relationship to the claim-integrity policy" section is contextual rather than operational. This sits at the level-4 anchor (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed), not the lean level-5 "every token earns its place".

Actionability

Fully concrete, instruction-only guidance: three named phases, an ordered decision tree with exact gate conditions, a closed four-value label set with exact reasons, a literal output contract including the table columns ("| # | Atomic claim | Label | Reason | Evidence anchor or what is missing |"), and a worked composite-split example. Every instruction is executable without interpretation.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: Preflight must fully complete "before triaging a single claim" with a stop-don't-guess checkpoint, secrets flagging before proceeding, an ordered decision tree walked "in order" with a stop-at-first-gate rule, plus Red Flags for error detection and a final Verification checklist. This matches the level-5 anchor (checklists, error-recovery guidance, gating before proceeding).

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: both referenced files exist and match their described contents (`references/label-decision-tree.md` — full gate criteria and tie-breaks; `references/worked-examples.md` — end-to-end assessments). References are one level deep, well signaled inline and in a dedicated contents table, and the split is appropriate — the executable procedure lives in SKILL.md while contested-detail criteria and worked examples are deferred.

Specificity

Multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "Runs Preflight, Claim Triage, and Validation, splits composite claims into atomic ones, and labels each. Runs no commands and writes no fixes", on a clearly named domain ("README, release notes, install and usage guides"). It also names the input ("user-supplied evidence") and the read-only boundary.

Completeness

The description field gives a clear "what" but no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the "when" is only weakly implied by naming document types, matching the level-3 anchor ("'when' is missing or only weakly implied"). Explicit trigger guidance exists, but in a separate frontmatter field (`when_to_use`), not in the description itself; the rubric caps completeness at 3 in that case.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "README", "release notes", "install and usage guides", "claims", "evidence", "unsupported" — but common variations users would actually say are missing ("docs", "documentation", "changelog", "accurate/up-to-date"). Not the level-5 anchor's comprehensive synonym and extension coverage, but clearly above the partial coverage of level 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche with distinct triggers: claim-checking public docs against supplied evidence, explicitly read-only ("Runs no commands and writes no fixes"), which separates it from code-review, doc-writing, and fixing skills. Minimal conflict risk; would not naturally trigger the wrong skill.