The per-phase indicator lists and COA framework earn their tokens, but the Key Concepts table and one-line phase definitions (e.g., 'Reconnaissance: Adversary gathers target information before attack') re-explain concepts Claude already knows, so it is mostly efficient rather than fully lean.

The 5-step workflow, specific MITRE tactic IDs, worked phase-matrix example, and 6-category COA framework are concrete, but the executable Splunk/EQL/PyMISP queries that operationalize the 'Tools & Systems' section live in references/api-reference.md and are never linked from the body, leaving the guidance incomplete.

The steps are clearly sequenced with a worked example, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g., verifying each action maps to exactly one phase, or confirming evidence supports a 'Completed' call), so checkpoints are missing.

The body is well organized into sections, but the existing references/api-reference.md — which contains the tool queries the 'Tools & Systems' section alludes to — is not referenced anywhere, so a relevant reference is present but unsignaled.

Names multiple concrete actions ('identify which phases an adversary has completed, where defenses succeeded or failed, and what controls would have interrupted the attack at earlier phases') in third person, matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

Explicitly answers what ('Analyzes intrusion activity... to identify which phases...') and when ('Use when conducting post-incident analysis...'), with explicit 'Activates for requests involving...' triggers, matching the top anchor.

Covers natural terms a security analyst would say — 'post-incident analysis', 'mapping detection gaps', 'kill chain analysis', 'intrusion kill chain', 'attack phase mapping', 'Lockheed Martin kill chain framework' — giving good trigger coverage.

Tightly scoped to the Lockheed Martin Cyber Kill Chain with distinct, domain-specific triggers, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.