Conciseness

The ~24-line body is lean: every section does work — a non-obvious project constraint ("it is not a camera, and any accuracy number must be MEASURED against a baseline"), three paths with inline commands, and next-step routing. It matches the 5 anchor ("lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place"); the 4 anchor's 'minor instances of over-explanation' would require trimmable padding, which isn't present.

Actionability

Two of three paths give copy-paste-ready commands (`docker run -p 8000:8000 ruvnet/wifi-densepose`, `cd v2 && cargo test --workspace --no-default-features`, `cargo run -p wifi-densepose-cli -- --help`) with a URL. The live-esp32 path defers its concrete steps to other skills ("Flash a node (`provision-node` skill), point it at the sensing-server, then `calibrate-room`") rather than giving an executable command — a minor gap that places this between the 4 and 5 anchors, noticeably above the midpoint of executable coverage but not fully self-contained.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear: three numbered paths each with a decision criterion ("fastest, no hardware", "for developers", "the only path that senses a real room"), a validation checkpoint in the repo-build path (`cargo test`), and a 'Then' section routing next steps by outcome. It matches the 4 anchor ("clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps") — the docker-demo and live-esp32 paths have no explicit verify step, so it doesn't reach the 5 anchor's explicit validation/feedback loops throughout.

Progressive Disclosure

Per the rubric's guideline, a skill under 50 lines with no need for external references can score 5 with well-organized sections; no bundle files exist to restructure. The body is a clean overview with clear sections, and the pointers to other skills (provision-node, calibrate-room, verify) are clearly signaled one-level navigation — matching the 5 anchor's 'clear overview... easy navigation'.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("RuView (WiFi-DensePose)") and several concrete actions — "pick docker-demo, repo-build, or live-esp32 and run the next concrete step" — with specific path names rather than generic verbs. It falls just short of the 5 anchor's comprehensive multi-action coverage (e.g., it doesn't say what each path actually does), but clearly exceeds the 3 anchor's 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear — a "Zero-to-sensing path picker" that picks one of three paths and runs the next step — but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; when to invoke it is only weakly implied by 'Zero-to-sensing'. Per the judging guideline, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3, which fits the 3 anchor exactly and rules out 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ("RuView", "WiFi-DensePose", "docker-demo", "repo-build", "live-esp32", "sensing") but these are product-internal path names rather than natural phrases a user would say; common variations like "set up", "install", "get started", "onboard", or "esp32 install" are missing. This matches the 3 anchor ("some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms") and is well below the 4/5 anchors' coverage of natural user terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description occupies a clear niche anchored to the unique product names "RuView" and "WiFi-DensePose" with distinct path triggers (docker-demo/repo-build/live-esp32), making conflict with other skills minimal. It matches the 5 anchor ("clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk"); no neighboring anchor fits better.