Conciseness

The body is dense and free of explanations of concepts Claude already knows, with every section carrying operational content; however, repeated phrases ('Preserve the current work' appears four times, 'explicitly approves' three times) and compressed run-on sentences (e.g., 'Preserve the original name and Run; after interruption, inspect the original Action and do not repeat completed work.') could be trimmed or split. Not 5 because of this repetition and over-compression; not 3 because there is no real padding.

Actionability

The main loop is concretely executable ('comet creator status <name> --project <project> --json', 'comet creator start <name> --project <project> --goal <user-goal> --install-target <relative-directory> --host codex|claude-code --json'), but the commands for submitting decisions, revising, and the critical 'documents' structure are never shown — they are deferred to 'reference/sdk-creation.md', which is not present in the bundle, leaving key details unavailable. Not 4 because these gaps are more than minor; not 2 because the primary workflow commands are fully specified with flags.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-stage sequence (start/resume → analysis and plan → confirmation/validation/delivery → recovery boundaries) is explicit, with validation checkpoints at every gate: user approval of the plan, artifact checks that 'must pass before installation', eval review with retry/revise/skip choices, and install preview approval. Feedback loops are explicit ('On failure, preserve the current work, correct the plan or artifacts, and resume the original Action') and a dedicated Recovery boundaries section covers error handling. This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, and error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The ~48-line body is well sectioned and defers detail via clearly signaled, one-level-deep references ('Before the first claim or action submission, read [Creation actions and recovery](reference/sdk-creation.md)'), but that referenced file does not exist in the bundle — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present — so navigation to the deferred material is broken. Not 4 because a missing referenced file is more than a minor organization gap; not 2 because the in-body structure itself is good and references are clearly signaled rather than buried.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'Inspect Skills for a goal and author the complete entry Skill and business Rule', 'the SDK assembles Runtime, connects Hooks, and previews installation' — but wraps them in unexplained platform jargon ('Native extensions, Classic compositions'), leaving coverage of what authoring concretely involves partially opaque. Not 5 because the internal terminology obscures the actions; not 3 because multiple distinct actions are explicitly stated.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (inspect Skills, author entry Skill and business Rule, SDK assembles Runtime/previews installation), but there is no positive 'Use when…' clause — only the negative boundary 'Not for general Skill cleanup or review'. Per the judging guideline, a missing 'Use when…' or equivalent explicit positive trigger guidance caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain keywords are present ('Skills', 'business Rule', 'extensions', 'applications', 'installation'), but the phrasing is dominated by platform-specific jargon rather than natural user language; common variations a user would actually say (e.g., 'create/build a comet app', 'make an extension') are missing. Not 2 because there are more than one or two relevant keywords; not 4 because natural phrasing is largely absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche (comet creator application authoring across 'Native extensions, Classic compositions, or standalone applications') and the explicit exclusion 'Not for general Skill cleanup or review' reduces conflict. Not 5 because terms like 'Skills' and 'author' carry minor overlap risk with generic skill-authoring guidance.