Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence: every line instructs ('Skip generated code (`genproto/`, `pb/`) ... and agent context (`.claude/`, `.agents/`, `.tessl/`)', 'Leave out `loopId` and `runId`; the service derives them from the scheduled run'). No padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands are given ('tessl finding list --project $TESSL_PROJECT_ID --limit 100 --json', 'tessl finding create --project $TESSL_PROJECT_ID --file finding.json --json') plus a complete finding.json template. Not a 5 because the update path references '--file changes.json' without showing that payload's shape, a minor gap in otherwise copy-paste-ready guidance.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step procedure is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints for a batch operation: 'A violation is confirmed when you can quote the rule and point to the line', 'view likely matches before deciding', and a terminal check ('If nothing drifts, create nothing'). Validation is present, so the missing-validation cap does not apply, and the sequence matches the explicit-checkpoint anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed; the content is split into well-organized sections (header rule, Inputs, Procedure, payload template, Finish). Per the simple-skill guideline, this earns a 5 — all references inside the body (rules/*-standards.md, AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md chain) are inputs to read at runtime, not skill bundle files, and no bundle directories exist.

Specificity

Quotes concrete actions — 'checks a repository against its team standards and reports one Tessl finding per standard it drifts from, for the `remediate` action to fix' — naming the domain and several specific operations. Not a 5 because it stops short of the fuller action coverage (e.g., reading standards, deduplicating existing findings) that would make it comprehensive, and not a 3 because it goes beyond the 1-2 generic actions anchor.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the 'what' ('checks a repository against its team standards and reports one Tessl finding per standard it drifts from') and the 'when' ('Use as the skill of the weekly conformance-sweep schedule'). Not a 5 because the 'when' is a single narrow schedule-wiring trigger rather than a set of concrete trigger phrases, and not a 3 because the trigger guidance is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('conformance', 'team standards', 'drift', 'Tessl finding', 'weekly ... schedule') but common variations and synonyms users might naturally say ('coding standards', 'compliance', 'lint', 'standards check') are missing. It fits the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor rather than the good-coverage anchor at 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description occupies a clear niche anchored by distinct triggers — 'Tessl finding', 'remediate', 'weekly conformance-sweep schedule' — so it is unlikely to fire for an unrelated skill. This matches the 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' anchor.