Conciseness

The body is mostly lean directives with no concept over-explanation, but it repeats the local-`.xlsx`/final-answer rule in both "Default Routing" and "Final Answer Requirement", and "Canonical Workflow Bias" spends several lines on meta-coaching Claude already knows. Efficient with minor trimmable redundancy — anchor 4, not 3, since padding is a small fraction of the whole.

Actionability

Concrete, executable instruction guidance throughout: named routing branches, a connector checklist ("Resolve and record the spreadsheet id, target sheet names, and `sheetId` values", "use exact visible tab names from metadata, bounded ranges", "Do not guess `Sheet1`"), and a task-to-reference table. A few steps remain high-level ("Gather the required source material"), and write-shape specifics are delegated to references — anchor 4.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced workflows with explicit checkpoints: per-route read order, "verify the output spreadsheet ID differs before writing", "Re-read target cells before writing", and verification against `references/reference-visual-quality.md` before stopping. Not 5 because validation detail for batch/destructive edits is delegated to reference files rather than stated as in-body feedback loops, and the three routing MUSTs are spread across sections.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview that splits all detail into one-level-deep, well-signaled references; all nine files named in the body exist in `references/`, and the Task-to-Reference map plus Required Read Order make navigation easy. Matches the anchor-5 structure exactly.

Specificity

Lists many concrete actions — "Analyze and edit", "create Google Sheets", "inspect tabs or ranges", "search rows", "plan formulas", "create or repair charts", "clean or restructure tables", "make explicit cell-range updates" — with comprehensive coverage of the spreadsheet domain, matching the anchor-5 example. Not 4 because there are no meaningful gaps in the action coverage.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Analyze and edit connected Google Sheets with range precision") and when ("Use when the user wants to create Google Sheets, find a spreadsheet, ...") with concrete trigger phrases, mirroring the anchor-5 good example. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is already fully explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "Google Sheets", "spreadsheet", "tabs", "ranges", "rows", "formulas", "charts", "tables" — all phrases users would naturally say. Not 5 because a few common user terms (e.g., sort/filter/format operations, sharing) are missing; not 3 because synonyms and the main product name are all present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear Google Sheets niche with distinct triggers (spreadsheet creation, tab/range inspection, chart repair) and minimal conflict risk with other skills. Not 4 because the domain and trigger terms are unambiguously spreadsheet-specific; the generic "write concise summaries" clause is a minor, non-conflicting inclusion.