Conciseness

Dense and operational with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but a few sentences could be trimmed, e.g. 'It emits a sorted JSON array of repository-relative policy paths, escapes control characters unambiguously, includes linked policies without following directory links, and prunes Git metadata' and 'Tests can show an intended control or failure mode; they do not prove the control works.' Fits anchor 4 (minor over-explanation) rather than anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Gives copy-paste-ready commands ('<plugin_dir>/scripts/launch_codex_security_mcp --helper resolve-security-md --repo <repo_root> --list' and the '--scope <file_or_directory> --out -' variant), a Windows launcher variant, a concrete 1 MiB size limit, a fill-in policy template, and a question budget ('Ask no more than three focused questions at once'). Matches anchor 5's fully executable guidance covering the common cases; not 4 because no key execution detail is missing.

Workflow Clarity

Four numbered stages (find policies -> establish boundary -> draft -> preview/approve/verify) with explicit validation gates: 'get explicit approval before writing', the feedback loop 'If it changed, refresh the diff and ask again', and post-edit verification 'rerun the resolver for the affected scope, and show the resulting policy chain and any remaining uncertainty.' Matches anchor 5's explicit validation with feedback loops; not 4 because no checkpoint is missing, so the destructive-edit cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized numbered sections with one clearly signaled one-level reference ('Read `../../references/security-guidance.md`'), but all operational detail — resolver output properties, policy composition rules, and the full 27-line template — is inline, and the referenced paths resolve outside the skill directory (no references/ bundle exists to verify). Fits anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps' rather than anchor 5's 'content appropriately split' across files.

Specificity

Names concrete actions — 'Define, review, or update SECURITY.md guidance for a repository or component' — plus four specific clarification targets ('what is out of scope', 'which security properties must hold'). Matches anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps') rather than anchor 5 because the actions all target a single artifact rather than a comprehensive set of distinct capabilities as in the anchor-5 example.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ('Define, review, or update SECURITY.md guidance for a repository or component') and when ('Use when the user wants to clarify what Codex Security should review, what is out of scope...') with four concrete trigger conditions, mirroring the anchor-5 example's structure. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific rather than needing more detail.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say — 'SECURITY.md', 'repository or component', 'out of scope', 'security properties', 'review' — with 'SECURITY.md' acting as a strong filename trigger. A few common variations are missing (e.g. 'security policy', 'threat model', 'in scope'), matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage; above anchor 3 because the natural phrasing present goes beyond 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'SECURITY.md' and 'Codex Security' pin a clear niche — authoring scanner policy guidance — with triggers unlikely to collide with generic security-review or documentation skills, matching anchor 5's 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'.