Conciseness

The body is two lines — a generator comment and a single dispatch instruction — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the anchor-5 lean example exactly.

Actionability

"Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md`" is a concrete, unambiguous, executable directive with an exact path (anchor 4's "concrete commands with minor gaps"). It is not anchor 5 because no guidance or examples cover the skill's actual task — all substance is delegated to an external file, with no fallback if that path is unavailable.

Workflow Clarity

This is a single-action skill and the action (load and follow a specific shared skill file) is unambiguous, so the simple-skill exception applies and workflow clarity can score 5. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so the validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference with nothing inlined that belongs in a separate file — good structure (anchor 4). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no overview content at all (just a bare pointer), and the referenced path lives outside the skill's own bundle — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist here and the ~/.agents path is not resolvable in this environment.

Specificity

The description enumerates the full pipeline as concrete actions — "classify the request, explore options and risks through dialogue, then commit a numbered Decision" — with the outputs (Decision, then Plan) and downstream stages ("review, prototypes, and acceptance") named. This matches the anchor-5 comprehensive example rather than anchor 4, since the action coverage has no evident gaps.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the "what" ("Turn an idea into a Conventional Docs Decision, then a Plan: classify the request, explore options and risks through dialogue, then commit a numbered Decision") and the "when" ("Use PROACTIVELY before any creative work — new features, new subsystems, interface or dependency changes, or any open-ended design question") with concrete trigger phrases. This is an exact anchor-5 match; anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes natural phrases users would actually say — "what are the options", "how should I approach", "should I use X or Y", "help me decide", "write a decision" — plus the domain synonym "ADR" and concrete contexts ("new features, new subsystems, interface or dependency changes"). Coverage including synonyms matches anchor 5, not anchor 4 which expects missing natural terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The decision-record framing ("Conventional Docs Decision", "numbered Decision", "ADR") carves out a distinct niche, but the catch-all "any open-ended design question" and "how should I approach" could also fire for general planning or architecture-design skills. That is minor overlap with closely related skills (anchor 4), not anchor 5's "minimal conflict risk" — while anchor 3 would understate the clearly differentiated ADR/decision core.