Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence (no explaining what folding or YAML is), but the Codex background/heartbeat handling is repeated nearly verbatim in three places — Workflow step 6 ("In Codex, run `download-results` as a foreground shell command with `yield_time_ms: 1000`; if Codex returns a `session_id`..."), the Command Pattern comments ("Codex: foreground shell command with yield_time_ms=1000; keep the returned session_id if one is provided"), and two long Always-Do-This bullets. This matches 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; the redundancy is more than the 'minor instances' of level 4.

Actionability

The Command Pattern block gives complete, executable `boltz-api` invocations with concrete flags (`--model boltz-2.1`, `--input @yaml:///absolute/path/payload.yaml`, `--raw-output --transform id`), and the payload shapes are shown as real JSON/YAML snippets with exact field names (`chain_ids`, `value`, `binder_chain_id`). Only placeholders the agent must fill (`<job-id-from-start>`, `<run-name>`) remain, and the file explicitly says to replace them — matching 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands'.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step Workflow is explicitly sequenced (normalize entities → binding block → author payload → `estimate-cost` → confirm → `start` → `download-results`) with a cost-confirmation checkpoint before the paid submit ("run `estimate-cost`, show the USD cost, wait for explicit confirmation") and error-recovery feedback: the 'SAB 400 validation quirk' section says "If the server rejects a payload ... inspect `entities`, `binding`, and `constraints`; read references/results.md for details", and restart guidance covers re-running `download-results` with the same `--name`. This matches 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: the body is a workflow overview, and both referenced bundle files exist and hold what is claimed — references/api.md carries the payload field reference (verified: entity types, binding variants, bonds, constraints, model_options) and references/results.md carries output layout, nested metrics, and the validation quirk. All references are one level deep and clearly signaled with markdown links. It falls short of level 5 because the runtime-specific operational detail (~25 lines of Codex session_id/heartbeat and Claude Code permission-gating guidance spread across three sections) is inlined in SKILL.md rather than split into a reference with a one-line pointer — 'most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'.

Specificity

"Predict structures and binding for one defined complex with Boltz" names concrete actions, and the trigger list enumerates specific operations — "folding a protein, RNA, DNA, or ligand complex, docking one ligand, predicting an interface, or scoring binding" — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's domain. This matches the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'; there are no vague filler phrases, so it is not the level 4 example with coverage gaps.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit ("Predict structures and binding for one defined complex with Boltz") and the 'when' is explicit with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when folding a protein, RNA, DNA, or ligand complex, docking one ligand, predicting an interface, or scoring binding"), matching the anchor 'Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'. The voice is third person ('Predict structures'), so no voice penalty applies.

Trigger Term Quality

The triggers are the natural phrases a user would say when they need this skill: "folding a protein", "docking one ligand", "predicting an interface", "scoring binding". Synonyms and variations are well covered across molecule types (protein, RNA, DNA, ligand), matching the anchor 'Comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms'. It is above level 4 because no common way of asking for structure prediction or binding analysis is obviously missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"for one defined complex" carves out a clear niche versus library-scale workflows, and the explicit negative boundary "Not for screening libraries or design" prevents mis-triggering against sibling screening/design skills. This matches 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' and is stronger than the level 4 'minor overlap risk' example.