Conciseness

The body is dense, lean prose with zero padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — e.g. the pass steps state constraints like 'Readers never edit or drive the app' and 'Never assume an optional client is admitted to a native run' with no surrounding filler. Every token earns its place, matching the anchor-5 example of lean, competence-assuming content.

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable: concrete commands ('For Paperclip run `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`'), concrete paths ('Keep the maps in `maps/{feature-map,agent-access-map}/`', '.agents/skills/verify-*/'), and a defined reader output checklist. Not 5 because several directives are environment-dependent and underspecified ('schedule within available slots', the evidence report format).

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ('run the smallest relevant validation', 'Re-read changed files, check paired IDs/references'), feedback loops ('After a skill-induced failure, fix within edit scope and retry once, restarting only what was invalidated'), and a checklist ('Keep three invariants'), matching anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so this scores the body itself: sections (Outcomes, Edit scope, Pass steps) are well organized, no content is inlined that belongs in separate files, and all references (maps/README.md, feature-map/README.md, agent-access-map/README.md, NOTICE.md) are clearly signaled and one level deep — matching anchor 5.

Specificity

Phrases like 'Keep a project's verification skill and product/agent access maps aligned with current source and real evidence', 'auditing the verify skill', and 'reconciling feature and agent access coverage' name several specific actions. Not 5 because the actions are moderately abstract ('keep aligned', 'reconcile coverage') rather than a comprehensive list of concrete capabilities.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ('Keep a project's verification skill and product/agent access maps aligned with current source and real evidence') and when ('Use for /maintain-verification-skill, auditing the verify skill, or reconciling feature and agent access coverage') with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the anchor-5 pattern. Third-person voice, so no penalty applies.

Trigger Term Quality

'Use for /maintain-verification-skill, auditing the verify skill, or reconciling feature and agent access coverage' includes the natural phrases a user would say (audit, reconcile, coverage) plus the slash command. Not 5 because common variations like 'update the maps', 'sync maps with source', or 'drift' are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (verification-skill and access-map maintenance) is clear with distinct triggers including a dedicated slash command. Not 5 because 'auditing the verify skill' has minor overlap risk with the closely related create-verification-skill sibling skill and generic audit skills.