Conciseness

The body is a lean navigation hub: every section carries commands or pointers ("pantheon-skill-auditor evaluate <domain>/<skill-name> --json --store", the NEVER/WHY anti-pattern bullets) with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. It matches the level-5 anchor (lean, assumes competence, every token earns its place); the only candidate deduction is the minor formatting stutter where "Build once, then audit:" is immediately followed by a "Build once:" line, but that is duplication of a heading, not over-explanation, so level 4 does not fit better.

Actionability

Quotes: "bun run build:skill-auditor", "pantheon-skill-auditor batch <skill1> <skill2> --fail-below B --store", the PR-scoped triage pipeline using git diff/sed/tr, and the self-audit with expected output "# Expected: A grade, total >= 126/140". Commands are fully executable, copy-paste ready, and cover the common cases (single, batch, PR-scope, all skills, self-audit), matching the level-5 anchor rather than level 4, which would require minor gaps in the shown commands.

Workflow Clarity

Quotes: "1. Run `pantheon-skill-auditor evaluate <skill> --json --store` ... 4. Run the auditor again to verify improvement; if score is below target, check `remediation-plan.md` and focus on the lowest-scoring dimension". The sequence is clear and includes an explicit re-audit feedback loop with conditional recovery, but step 3 ("Generate a remediation plan with T-shirt sizing") has no corresponding command anywhere in the body — the bundled scripts/generate-remediation-plan.sh is never surfaced — and step 2's "deterministic criteria" are unspecified inline. This fits level 4 (clear sequence, most checkpoints present, minor gaps) rather than level 5, and exceeds level 3 because validation via re-audit is explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview hub with two well-organized References tables carrying Topic | Reference | When-to-Use columns (e.g. "Per-dimension criteria and bonus rules | [Dimensions](references/framework-dimensions.md) | Evaluating any dimension"), and all 12 referenced files exist in references/. References are one level deep — the cross-links found inside reference files are illustrative template examples inside fenced code blocks, not nested navigation — matching the level-5 anchor of a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references and easy navigation.

Specificity

Quotes: "Evaluate, score, and remediate agent skill collections", "Performs duplication detection, generates remediation plans with T-shirt sizing, enforces CI quality gates, validates artifact conventions, tracks score trends, and ensures tessl registry compliance". It lists multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities, matching the level-5 anchor; it exceeds level 4 because the gaps are not minor — the action list covers evaluation, remediation, duplication, CI gating, conventions, trends, and compliance. Third-person voice ("Evaluate", "Performs") is used throughout, so no voice penalty applies.

Completeness

Quotes: "Evaluate, score, and remediate agent skill collections using a 9-dimension quality framework..." (what) and "Use when evaluating skill quality, auditing SKILL.md files... or checking tessl compliance" (when, with concrete trigger phrases). Both what and when are explicitly and clearly answered, matching the level-5 anchor; level 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific, which is not the case here.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: "Use when evaluating skill quality, auditing SKILL.md files, scoring agent skills, generating remediation plans..." plus an explicit trigger list: "'check my skills', 'skill audit', 'improve my SKILL.md', 'quality check', 'A-grade scoring', 'audit all skills', 'remediation plan', 'skill judge'". This covers natural user phrasings, synonyms, and concrete file artifacts (SKILL.md), matching the comprehensive level-5 anchor rather than level 4, where a few natural terms would be missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: "auditing SKILL.md files", "tessl registry compliance", "9-dimension quality framework" establish a clear niche, but the trigger terms "'quality check'" and "'quality gates'" are generic and could plausibly fire for code-quality or CI skills. This fits the level-4 anchor (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk with closely related skills) rather than level 5, because the generic quality triggers are not minimal-risk; it is above level 3 since the skill-scoped terms (SKILL.md, skill audit, tessl) make wrong-skill triggering unlikely in most contexts.