Conciseness

Nearly all content is novel operational policy (comet CLI semantics, evidence validity, phase transitions) that Claude would not know, avoiding score-2 territory, but it is 'mostly efficient... could be tightened': the anti-repetition rules ("Do not repeat next, select, or check", "do not reload", "do not repeat Verify's final review") recur in at least four sections, and the exit-conditions evidence paragraph is a ~400-word wall that buries key rules. It does not reach score 4 because several sections need restructuring or trimming to be efficient.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready with concrete example invocations — `comet state set <name> build_mode autonomous subagent_dispatch null tdd_mode tdd review_mode standard --json`, `comet guard <change-name> build --apply`, `comet check run <change-name> build --local -- <program> [args...]`, `comet state task-complete <name> <task-id> --expect <revision> --json` — plus decision tables (build_mode, tdd_mode/review_mode, scope Small/Medium/Large) covering common cases. This matches the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready... specific examples cover the common cases' anchor.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (entry state check with BLOCKED/ERROR handling, guard --apply as a phase gate, an exit-conditions checklist), feedback loops for error recovery (invalid evidence names changed files and reruns only the listed scope; CRITICAL/IMPORTANT findings must be resolved; branch mismatch pauses under decision-point), and dedicated recovery sections. This matches the top anchor including its checklist and error-recovery criteria.

Progressive Disclosure

The bundle has no references/scripts/assets of its own, but the body cleanly signals one-level-deep external references at point of need (classic-layout.md, context-recovery.md, decision-point.md, subagent-dispatch.md, debug-gate.md, dirty-worktree.md, auto-transition.md, scripts.md), and sections are well organized. It stays at 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than 5 because dense reference-grade policy (the evidence-input-scope, check-policy, and record-check paragraphs in the exit section) is inlined as unbroken walls of text that belong in a separate reference file.

Specificity

"Plan, implement, and accept Classic tasks" names the domain (Classic tasks) and three actions, but the actions are broad lifecycle verbs rather than concrete capabilities, matching the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It falls below score 4 because the actions lack the specific, elaborated detail of 'extracts text, fills forms, converts pages', and above score 2 because it does list multiple distinguishable actions instead of minimal/generic ones.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Plan, implement, and accept Classic tasks") and when ("Use when the user invokes /comet-build or Classic Runtime enters Build or returns to Build for repairs") with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the score-5 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include "/comet-build", "Classic Runtime enters Build", and "returns to Build for repairs" — natural, specific phrases a user of this system would say. It sits at 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' (score 4) because common variations like "build the change" or "implement the plan" are absent, and below score 5 which demands comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger is anchored to a specific command invocation and a specific runtime phase transition, giving it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against generic build/implementation skills. Score 4 would require notable overlap with closely related skills, which the command-specific trigger avoids.