Conciseness

Lean throughout: uses git/commits/push without explaining them, and every section (Five Laws, backend choice, message format, send/receive loops, doorbells, security, hygiene) is novel protocol semantics Claude could not infer. No padded or over-explained passages; not 4 because there are no trimmable instances of over-explanation.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact `.bus/` directory layout, msg-id naming scheme, a complete copy-paste-ready message template with all fields, the exact commit format 'bus: <to> ← <from>: <subject> [<id>]', concrete git commands for claim/complete, and the exact doorbell format 'bus: check <repo>'. The common cases are covered end-to-end without pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Both multi-step workflows are clearly sequenced with explicit validation and feedback loops: 'If push is rejected, pull --rebase and push again', 'Push rejected → someone else claimed or the file moved; pull and continue. You do not own a message until your claim push lands', plus blocked-state handling (state: input-required) and crash recovery (janitor returns stale claims after 24h). Claim-push atomicity acts as the ownership checkpoint.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview; deep material (full field semantics, beads and GitHub-issue mappings, claim-race walkthroughs, recovery, worked examples) is correctly placed in the verified one-level-deep references/protocol.md, clearly signaled with when-to-read guidance ('Read it before implementing a new bus client or debugging claim conflicts'). scripts/bus.sh is referenced with its subcommand list and purpose, and both bundle files exist on disk.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'Coordinate multi-agent work through durable artifacts in git', 'sending a message to another agent', 'agent mailboxes or handoffs', 'claiming work from a shared queue', 'notifying another agent or crew' — but coverage has minor gaps: the receiving/processing/completing side of the protocol is not mentioned. Anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps') fits better than 5, which demands comprehensive coverage.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('Coordinate multi-agent work through durable artifacts in git instead of chat') and when ('Use this whenever a task involves...' with concrete trigger phrases). Matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly; not 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and specific rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage with synonyms: 'agent mailboxes', 'handoffs', 'claiming work from a shared queue', 'artifact bus, message bus, agent mail, beads mail, doorbells, or pings between agents', plus named platforms (OpenClaw, Grok Bot, Claude Code, Codex, Gas Town/Gas City) and the explicit catch-all 'even if they don't say "bus" explicitly'. No natural phrasing a user would say is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — durable git-artifact coordination between agents — with distinct triggers (bus, agent mail, doorbells, pings between agents, named crews) that no generic skill would claim. Minimal conflict risk.