Conciseness

The body is code-forward and lean — steps are directives like "Flag: always sign the digest (@sha256:…), never the tag — tags are mutable" rather than tutorials on concepts Claude knows. Minor trims remain: the digest-not-tag rule is stated twice in sign mode (step 5 and 'Key rules'), and enforce mode's step 3 re-shows the `validationActions: [Audit]` snippet already present in the policy block. Matches 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'; not score 5 because of this duplication, and the inline version-pinned snippets carry time-sensitive version numbers without a deprecation-style section.

Actionability

Every mode ships executable, copy-paste-ready artifacts: pinned GitHub Actions steps (`sigstore/cosign-installer@11086d9… # v3.8.1`), a complete Kyverno ImageValidatingPolicy, and concrete verify commands (`cosign verify --certificate-identity-regexp=…`, `slsa-verifier verify-image …`). Matches 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands'; placeholders like `ghcr.io/<org>/<image>` are appropriate templating, not pseudocode, so score 3/4 anchors do not apply.

Workflow Clarity

Each mode is a numbered sequence, the wizard gathers context before acting, and verification checkpoints exist (cosign verify after sign, severity gate that fails the build, audit-first Kyverno rollout with a Kubescape C-0237 pre-check, slsa-verifier after provenance). Matches 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'; not score 5 because there are no explicit error-recovery feedback loops (e.g., what to do when `cosign verify` or the Trivy gate fails) — the strongest anchor requires feedback loops for error recovery.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good — six clearly-signaled modes each ending with a "Reference: references/supply-chain.md → …" pointer — but the referenced files (`references/supply-chain.md`, `references/kyverno.md`) do not exist in the bundle, so every pointer dangles and navigation is impossible. Additionally, full policy/workflow YAML (the ~30-line Kyverno policy, the SLSA workflow) is inlined where the reference files are the natural home. Matches 'Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline' — here references are clearly signaled but broken, which keeps it at the same mid-tier rather than 4 ('references mostly clear' presumes they resolve).

Specificity

The description lists five concrete capability areas with named tools: "Cosign keyless image signing (Sigstore/Rekor)", "SBOM generation and attestation (Syft)", "vulnerability scanning with severity gates (Trivy/Grype)", "SLSA Level 2 provenance", and "Kyverno/OPA admission enforcement". This matches the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'; it is well above the score-4 anchor's 'minor gaps in coverage' since both the signing and enforcement sides of the pipeline are covered.

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' ("Secure the software supply chain from source to running container. Covers...") and 'when' ("Use when asked to...") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor 'Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'. It is not score 4 because the 'when' clause is not merely present but enumerated with six specific triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

Six natural user phrasings are quoted directly ("sign my image", "generate an SBOM", "scan for CVEs", "attest build provenance", "enforce image signatures in Kubernetes", "implement SLSA") plus tool names (Cosign, Trivy, Grype, Syft, Kyverno) users would name. This matches 'Comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms'; score 4 ('a few natural terms missing') would apply only if common phrasings were absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (container supply-chain security: sign, SBOM, scan, enforce, SLSA) and the triggers are distinct phrases unlikely to fire a general PDF/code/CI skill. Matches 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'; the tools named further disambiguate it from generic security or Kubernetes skills.