Conciseness

Mostly efficient, load-bearing tables, but with real repetition: the justification "Single awk command with no shell pipes, so the table row executes verbatim" is repeated across five rules, the deprecated `bug-analysis` alias is explained in four separate places (metadata tag comment, mode table, alias-handling paragraph, Fix Mode section), and the 89% cap is restated in the callout, rule intro, Step 3, and Output Format. This fits anchor 3 (could be tightened) better than anchor 4's "minor instances".

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: copy-paste-ready `test -f`, `grep`, and single-command `awk` one-liners for all 11 deterministic rule checks, an exact output-format template with a worked table skeleton, explicit dimension weights, and numeric score thresholds. Specific examples cover the plan/code/analysis common cases — anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Plan mode is explicitly sequenced (Step 1 LLM dimensional scoring → Step 2 deterministic rule checks → Step 3 combined gate) with a hard validation checkpoint ("A failing rule is a blocker the gate must surface even if the LLM dimensional score is high"), an iteration protocol that re-runs the assessment after each of up to 2 iterations, and a Post-Fix Re-Assessment feedback loop. This matches anchor 5's explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single-file body is well navigated via a Contents list and clean section headers; the Output Format and Fix Mode sections are cleanly gated ("omit for code/analysis", "Skip this section entirely if not in Fix Mode"). The ~60-line rule-check table with long inline awk commands is a plausible candidate for a one-level-deep reference file, which keeps this at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

"Rates confidence that the current work fully solves the stated requirement. Supports plan validation, code review, and analysis (root-cause, refactor, diagnose) modes" names several concrete capabilities with mechanism detail ("a failed rule caps the gate at 89% regardless of LLM score"). Minor gaps — Fix Mode and the % report output are never mentioned — keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5, and it is well above the 1–2-action level of anchor 3.

Completeness

It clearly answers both questions: what ("Rates confidence that the current work fully solves the stated requirement") and when ("Use before committing to autonomous execution, after implementation, or during investigation") with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly; it is not anchor 4 because the 'when' is already explicit and specific rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

The explicit list `Triggers on "confidence check", "validate plan", "rate confidence", "quality gate", "/confidence"` plus timing phrases ("before committing to autonomous execution, after implementation, or during investigation") gives good natural-term coverage. Common user variations (e.g. "is this right", "double-check this plan") are missing, so it does not reach the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The confidence-rating niche is distinct with dedicated triggers ("rate confidence", "/confidence"), but "quality gate" and "code review" phrasing creates minor overlap with general review/quality skills — anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap) rather than 5 (minimal conflict risk).