Conciseness

The body is dense and operational (steps, commands, gotchas) with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the "Metrics Summary Format" block duplicates the Metrics Summary already present in reference.md's report template, and the gotcha about testing the loader repeats step 1. This matches 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than score 5's 'every token earns its place', and is well above score 3's noticeable padding.

Actionability

Concrete copy-paste guidance throughout: `bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/retrospect-load-sessions.sh $@`, exact slash-command examples for every argument mode, a concrete output path with example filename, and a filled-in metrics example. Not score 5 because the referenced loader script (`scripts/retrospect-load-sessions.sh`) does not exist in the skill's bundle (only `references/reference.md` is present), leaving a minor executability gap; far above score 3's pseudocode/incomplete level.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-7 are clearly sequenced with concrete commands, and the Gotchas section supplies error-recovery loops (skip duration metrics when `duration_seconds` is absent, emit a partial report when session files are unreadable, parse the PERIOD header carefully, test the loader directly). Not score 5 because there is no explicit checkpoint verifying the report was written correctly or that the analyzed session count matches the loader output; this is not a destructive/batch-write operation, so the score-3 cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure against the actual bundle: the body is an overview with well-labeled sections and a clearly signaled, real one-level-deep reference ([Reference](references/reference.md) — 'scoring rubrics, metric definitions, and report format'). Not score 5 because the body references a `scripts/` directory that is absent from the bundle, and it inlines the Metrics Summary format and analysis dimension lists that partially duplicate reference.md content rather than deferring them.

Specificity

"Analyze collaboration patterns (HOW) and compute metrics from captured sessions" names the domain and exactly two concrete actions (analyze patterns, compute metrics). It is not score 4 because the skill's other real capabilities (impact categorization, Start/Stop/Continue, longitudinal progression) are absent, leaving coverage gaps; it is above score 2 because the actions named are more specific than generic domain-labeling.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both parts: "what" via "Analyze collaboration patterns (HOW) and compute metrics from captured sessions" and "when" via "Use when reviewing collaboration quality, analyzing human-AI interaction, computing session metrics" plus a concrete quoted trigger list. This matches the score-5 anchor (clear what AND when with concrete trigger phrases) and exceeds score 4, where the 'when' would be less explicit or specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases "retrospect collab", "collaboration analysis", "session patterns", "how am I collaborating" are natural user phrasings, with "how am I collaborating" an especially likely verbatim query. Not score 5 because common synonyms/variants are missing (e.g., "retrospective", "how do I work with AI/Claude", "collab quality", "teamwork"); not score 3 because coverage goes well beyond a couple of generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (HOW-focused collaboration analysis of captured AI sessions) is mostly distinct with targeted triggers like "retrospect collab" and "session patterns". Not score 5 because the description does not disambiguate from the closely related `retrospect-domain` skill (the HOW/WAT distinction lives only in the body), leaving minor overlap risk with that sibling skill; well above score 3's broader overlap profile.