Conciseness

The body is ~40 lines with zero padding: a one-line purpose ("캠프 중 반복되는 작업이 있는데 기존 스킬로 커버되지 않으면 새 스킬 초안을 만든다"), five terse numbered steps, one template block, and three antipattern bullets. Every token earns its place and nothing explains concepts Claude already knows — a clean match for the 'lean and efficient' anchor.

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill the guidance is mostly executable: the template is a complete, copy-paste-ready SKILL.md skeleton and steps name concrete artifacts ("새 SKILL.md를 작성한다", "skills/manifest.json에 추가한다"). It falls short of 5 because "기존 스킬과 겹치는지 확인한다" never says where to check, and manifest registration is given no example entry or format.

Workflow Clarity

The 절차 section gives a clear five-step sequence with an explicit decision branch (steps 3–4: overlap → extend the existing skill; no overlap → create new from the template), matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. It is not 5 because there is no validation checkpoint after drafting — e.g., re-checking the new skill against the 안티패턴 list or confirming the manifest remains valid — though the additive (non-destructive, non-batch) nature of the workflow means the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, has no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and needs none — the template is appropriately inlined and sections (목적 / 절차 / 새 스킬 템플릿 / 안티패턴) are cleanly organized. Per the simple-skill guideline this earns a 5 on well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

"캠프 진행 중 빠진 기능을 새 Markdown 스킬로 만든다" names the domain (skill creation for uncovered camp needs) and one concrete action, but does not enumerate the skill's actual capabilities (overlap checking, extending existing skills, manifest registration) that the body performs. It fits the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' anchor — not 4 because it lists no multi-action coverage, not 2 because the action is concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (creates new Markdown skills for functionality missing during a camp; a lightweight version of GBrain skill-creator), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It cannot score 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

The description contains some relevant keywords ("Markdown 스킬", "GBrain skill-creator", "캠프") but misses common natural variations a user would say; the richer natural phrases ("새 스킬 만들기", "스킬 생성") live only in the separate triggers field, not the description. This matches 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than the good-coverage anchor at 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"GBrain skill-creator의 경량 버전이다" carves out a distinct niche (camp-context, lite skill creation) with a clear parent lineage, so it is 'mostly distinct' — but by its own framing it overlaps with the full skill-creator and shares the "skill creator" trigger. It does not reach 5 because that stated relationship with a closely related skill leaves minor overlap risk.