Conciseness

The body is efficient — tables, commands, and a precise YAML output schema with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Minor over-explanation could be trimmed ("Per-PR runs catch regressions before merge. Weekly runs catch drift in the harness itself") and the Purpose section plus the "Differences from Interactive Version" table restate overlapping content. Anchor 4 fits: efficient with minor instances of trimming possible, not anchor 3's "some unnecessary explanation" and not anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: exact install commands ("gh skill install pskoett/pskoett-skills eval-creator-ci"), validation ("gh aw compile --actionlint --zizmor"), a copy-paste trigger YAML block, and concrete per-check semantics ("grep-check: Search target files for pattern, compare to expected (found/not_found)"). The gap that keeps it from anchor 5: create mode says "Create the eval case file in .evals/cases/ with proper frontmatter" without ever specifying or referencing the eval case frontmatter format.

Workflow Clarity

Both modes are clearly numbered sequences with explicit checkpoints ("Check preconditions — if not met, mark as skip", "Compare result to expected outcome", "If gate policy is enabled and any eval fails: fail the check run"), so the batch-operation validation cap does not apply. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no in-run error-recovery loop (e.g., what to do with a malformed eval case file — failures only flow downstream to self-improvement-ci), but it is well above anchor 3's implicit checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The bundle reference references/workflow-example.md exists and holds the bulk gh-aw workflow template, clearly signaled one level deep ("Copy references/workflow-example.md into .github/workflows/eval-creator-ci.md"), with only key snippets (trigger YAML, output schema) kept inline. Minor organization gaps — the Install section lists four redundant fallback command variants and the Data Flow diagram partially duplicates the Integration tables — keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, comprehensive actions ("Runs all eval cases in .evals/ on a schedule or per-PR, reports pass/fail results, and can block merges on regressions. Also creates new eval cases from promoted patterns"), matching the anchor-5 example — but the second-person phrasing "Use when: you want automated regression testing..." triggers the rubric's voice penalty of -1. It is well above anchor 3, which covers only 1-2 actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Runs all eval cases in .evals/... reports pass/fail results, and can block merges... Also creates new eval cases") and when ("Use when: you want automated regression testing of promoted rules in CI/headless pipelines"), plus a concrete boundary clause ("For interactive eval creation and runs, use eval-creator"). This matches anchor 5 exactly; anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present: "regression testing", "CI/headless pipelines", "block merges", "per-PR", ".evals", "eval regression runner". It falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage (missing "GitHub Actions", "merge gate", "automated testing") but is clearly better than anchor 3, which expects missing common variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers: "CI-only", "gh-aw (GitHub Agentic Workflows)", ".evals/", "learning-aggregator-ci", and an explicit disambiguation pointing interactive use to "eval-creator". Minimal conflict risk — matches anchor 5, not anchor 4, since the sibling-skill overlap is explicitly resolved.