Conciseness

The body is two lines with zero over-explanation of known concepts, matching 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' — the maintainer-facing HTML comment ('Generated by scripts/agent-harnesses.py; do not edit directly') is roughly a third of the body and serves no model-facing purpose, so 'every token earns its place' (anchor 5) does not hold.

Actionability

The only guidance is 'Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/git-value-scrubbing/SKILL.md`' — a concrete directive, but it contains no task-level steps, code, or commands for the actual skill function, and the target path does not exist in the bundle or on the system. This fits 'minimal concrete guidance; missing the specific steps to execute' (anchor 2); it is not anchor 1 because the instruction is specific and executable rather than vague, and not anchor 3 because no task guidance exists in the body at all.

Workflow Clarity

The single redirect step is unambiguous, but the actual workflow (writing filter scripts, configuring .gitattributes, renormalizing tracked files) is entirely absent with no sequence or validation checkpoints — matching 'rough sequence present but many gaps; validation absent' (anchor 2). Not anchor 1 because the one step present is coherent and clearly stated; not anchor 3 because there are no task steps whose checkpoints could be implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a single clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference, but it points outside the bundle to `~/.agents/skills/git-value-scrubbing/SKILL.md`, which does not exist (verified), and the bundle contains no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files while the comment cites a nonexistent `scripts/agent-harnesses.py`. This is 'minimal structure' (anchor 2); not anchor 1 because the reference is prominently signaled rather than buried or nested, and not anchor 3 because there is no overview content or in-bundle organization — the sole navigation target is dead.

Specificity

The description lists five concrete action phrases ('scrub JSON values', 'mask config fields', 'add a Git clean filter', 'remove volatile values from tracked config', 'stop config churn'), matching 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' (anchor 4). It is not anchor 5 because these are quoted user requests rather than statements of the skill's capabilities — the mechanism (clean/smudge filters, .gitattributes) is never described — and not anchor 3 because far more than 1-2 concrete, domain-specific actions are named.

Completeness

The 'when' is fully explicit ('This skill should be used when the user asks to...' plus five concrete trigger phrases), but the 'what' is never explicitly stated — the skill's actual behavior is only inferable from the quoted requests. Per the guideline to score only what is explicitly stated, this sits between anchor 2 ('only when present without what') and anchor 4: above 2 because the trigger clauses carry concrete domain action content, below 4 because no explicit capability statement exists.

Trigger Term Quality

The quoted phrases ('scrub JSON values', 'mask config fields', 'add a Git clean filter', 'stop config churn') are natural terms users would plausibly say, giving 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' (anchor 4). It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms such as 'redact', 'sanitize', or 'hide secrets in config' are absent, and it exceeds anchor 3 because the terms are varied and specific rather than generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Triggers like 'add a Git clean filter', 'remove volatile values from tracked config', and 'stop config churn' carve a clear niche, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' (anchor 4). It is not anchor 5 because 'scrub JSON values' and 'mask config fields' lack Git context and could collide with generic redaction/masking skills, and not anchor 3 because the core triggers are highly specific to this skill's niche.