Conciseness

The body is a maximally lean two-line pointer ('Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/small-change/SKILL.md`') with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the only extra line is a one-line provenance comment ('Generated by scripts/agent-harnesses.py; do not edit directly.') that also serves as edit guidance. Every token earns its place.

Actionability

'Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/small-change/SKILL.md`' is a single concrete, executable instruction with an exact path, matching 'mostly executable guidance'. It falls short of a 5 because there is no verification or fallback for the delegation (e.g., what to do if the shared path is absent) and no example beyond the single case, but it is far above 3 since nothing is vague or pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

For a single-purpose pointer skill the one action is unambiguous, and the simple-skill exception applies, but there is a minor validation gap: no checkpoint confirming the shared skill was actually loaded/followed. It is not 3 because the single step is clear rather than a gapped multi-step sequence, and not 5 because no explicit validation of the delegation exists.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), and the body contains exactly one clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ('Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/small-change/SKILL.md`') with no nesting. It misses 5 because the body provides no overview at all of what the delegated skill contains, so nothing can be discovered from this file alone.

Specificity

It lists several concrete actions — 'Make a small change in the main session' plus three named review passes ('isolated fact, standards and final passes') — with only minor gaps in coverage. It is not 5 because 'small change' is left undefined in scope and the content of each pass is not comprehensively specified, and not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions by enumerating the distinct passes.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated ('Make a small change in the main session, then review it through isolated fact, standards and final passes') but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise, and not 2 because the 'what' is concrete, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

'small change', 'review', and 'main session' are relevant keywords a user might plausibly say, but common variations and synonyms ('quick edit', 'minor tweak', 'small fix') are absent. It is not 4 because keyword coverage is thin with several natural terms missing, and not 2 because the terms present are domain-relevant rather than purely generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pass structure ('isolated fact, standards and final passes') is somewhat distinctive, but 'small change' plus 'review' is phrasing that overlaps with generic edit and code-review skills. It is not 4 because the overlap with closely related change/review skills is more than minor, and not 2 because the named multi-pass review vocabulary keeps it from being broadly generic.