Conciseness

The body is dense with repo-specific policy and commands Claude could not know, with no filler explaining general concepts — but the certification/publish-consumption policy is restated ('Publish consumes the latest completed certification evidence...' vs 'A green daily or manually dispatched certification requires...') and several long winding sentences could be tightened. Not 5 due to this redundancy; not 3 because nearly all content is non-obvious operational knowledge, not padding.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste 'gh workflow run deep-inspect.yml -f lane=<lane>' for every lane, 'gh run list/view/download' for inspection, and complete local-equivalent dotnet commands with exact project paths and flags. Not 4 because the commands cover the common cases completely with no gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The flow (dispatch a lane → inspect runs/artifacts → interpret per the Reading results rules) is clearly sequenced by section, and validation checkpoints are explicit ('A green... certification requires the test, platform-test, and decompiler-corpus jobs at one exact SHA'; 'Non-success outcomes remain red and require explicit human acceptance after review'). Not 5 because error-recovery guidance routes to an external release-workflow doc rather than including the feedback loop inline; not 3 because verification requirements and failure handling are stated, not absent.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single-file body is well organized into Lanes / manual dispatch / local equivalents / Reading results with a scannable lane table. Not 5 because some lane-specific operational detail (e.g. package-sweep scheduling and promotion policy) is inlined where a reference file would keep the overview lean, and one reference is a buried relative link ('../../../docs/release-workflow.md#ship-only-override') whose path is awkward outside the repo layout; not 3 because structure and navigation are otherwise good.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete capabilities — 'coordinate Deep Inspect lanes (full slow tests, cross-platform certification, IL round-trip sweep, corpus sensors, package discovery, validity scans, and analysis census)' — giving comprehensive, specific coverage of what the skill does. Not score 4 because coverage is comprehensive rather than having minor gaps; not below because no part is vague.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: 'Use when a dotnet-inspect change needs expensive evidence outside normal PR CI, or when preparing release certification' (when, with concrete triggers) and 'coordinate Deep Inspect lanes (...)' (what). Matches the top anchor with concrete trigger phrases, so not 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural maintainer phrases like 'expensive evidence outside normal PR CI', 'release certification', 'full slow tests', and 'cross-platform certification' would plausibly be said when this skill is needed. Not 5 because there are no synonyms or variations for key terms (e.g. 'nightly', 'package sweep', 'corpus ratchet' appear only in the body); not 3 because the included keywords are relevant and mostly the ones users would say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (dotnet-inspect Deep Inspect CI/certification lanes) with distinct, domain-specific triggers; minimal risk of firing for an unrelated skill. Not 4 because the triggers are uniquely tied to this repo's workflow rather than overlapping with closely related skills.