Conciseness

Terse imperative style with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every line is instructional ("Read the full document before suggesting any changes", "Do not reprint the full document after each edit — describe what changed and where"). It is not the 5 anchor because of real duplication: the identical Vale/Dale check blocks appear in Stage 2 Step 4 and Stage 3 Step 5 ("Fix all reported errors. Re-run until zero errors remain" twice), and the doc-draft handoff is stated twice (Stage 2 Step 5 and "Tips for Handling Deviations"). It is above the 3 anchor because there is no padded or unnecessary conceptual explanation, only process redundancy.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands: "vale <file>", "/dale <file>", "npm run quality:check -- --table", "npm run quality:readability -- <file>". Scripted intake questions, a concrete placeholder ("{/* TODO: add an example */}"), a worked before/after example ("Before: 'It is recommended that you configure...' / After: 'Configure the monitoring plan before enabling auditing.'"), and a sample findings report ("For example, setting the interval to 4 hours means the monitoring plan collects data four times per day") cover the common cases. Per the rubric's note on instruction-only skills, the absence of code blocks beyond commands is not penalized because the guidance is actionable.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequences in all four stages with numbered steps, and explicit validation feedback loops where they matter for document editing: "Fix all reported errors. Re-run until zero errors remain" followed by the Dale pass and "Report what was fixed across both linters". Stage 2 Step 5 is an explicit checklist (flow/consistency, redundancy/contradictions, sentences that don't earn their place), and the intake stage defines unambiguous routing ("Do not ask 'what do you need?' — they've already told you"). This matches the 5 anchor: explicit validation steps, feedback loops for error recovery, and a checklist.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-structured single file with clearly staged headers and a consistent step pattern; external references are well signaled ("Read `docs/CLAUDE.md` before starting any session. It contains the Netwrix style rules..." and ".claude/references/lint-rules.md lists the rules"). It is not the 5 anchor because the duplicated Vale/Dale check blocks across Stage 2 and Stage 3 are content that should be factored into one shared section (or a one-level-deep reference file), leaving a minor organization gap — exactly the 4 anchor's "minor organization gaps". It is well above the 3 anchor: nothing that clearly belongs in a separate file is inlined.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions across every workflow: "review, edit, tighten, restructure, or improve an existing doc, section, or paragraph", "an external document (.docx) merged into an existing markdown file", "brainstorm or outline before writing", and "asks why Vale or Dale flagged something or what a style rule means". This is comprehensive coverage of the body's four workflows, so it fits the 5 anchor rather than the 4 anchor ("minor gaps in coverage") — no capability in the body is left out.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what — "Interactive help with Netwrix documentation already in progress or already written" (plus the enumerated capabilities); when — "Use whenever the user wants to review, edit, tighten, restructure..." with concrete quoted trigger phrases, and scope clarified by "Applies to any file under docs/ or any pasted doc text". It also adds an explicit negative boundary ("use doc-draft instead"), which exceeds the 5 anchor's requirement rather than falling to the 4 anchor's "when could be more explicit".

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms, file extensions, and literal user utterances: "doc", "section", "paragraph", ".docx", "markdown", "Vale", "Dale", plus quoted phrases users would actually say: "'review this page'", "'does this read well'", "'make this clearer'", "'how should I structure this'", "'fix this section'". This matches the 5 anchor (synonyms + file extensions + natural phrasing); the 4 anchor requires "a few natural terms missing", and none of the common phrasings are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers: Netwrix documentation, the Vale/Dale linters, "any file under docs/", and style-rule questions. The main overlap risk (drafting from source material) is explicitly routed away: "When the user hands over source material to write from (a PR, a GitHub issue, Jira ticket, or Azure DevOps item, specs, notes, a detailed prompt), use doc-draft instead". This active disambiguation puts it at the 5 anchor, beyond the 4 anchor's "minor overlap risk with closely related skills".