Conciseness

Every phrase is load-bearing ('each on a different model, the same question with the same files', 'never its own', 'goes back to its author once') with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It matches anchor 5 — lean, assumes competence, every token earns its place — not anchor 4, since there is no over-explanation left to trim.

Actionability

The procedure is fully executable for an instruction-only skill: it specifies subagent count ('two or three'), the exact critique questions ('what it gets right that yours misses... each with a file:line, quote or number'), the retry bound ('once'), and an enumerated hand-back checklist. Per the rubric's scoring note for instruction-only skills, absence of code is not penalized when the guidance is this concrete, matching anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence (gather blind answers → write a pre-pick → exchange rival critiques → pick → structured hand-back) with an explicit feedback loop ('A critique with no evidence goes back to its author once'), a validation checkpoint (the preliminary pick recorded before critiques arrive), and an early-exit rule ('The answers agree, or one check settles the question → settle it yourself'). This matches anchor 5; the destructive/batch cap does not apply since the skill performs no destructive or batch operations.

Progressive Disclosure

At ~22 lines with a single task and no bundle files, the skill needs no external references; its sequential paragraphs and bullet checklists are well organized. Per the rubric's simple-skill exception (under 50 lines, no external references needed), this matches anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain and two concrete actions ('check each other's answers, then pick on the evidence') but does not comprehensively enumerate the procedure (e.g., the critique round, the evidence standard, the structured hand-back). This matches anchor 3; it does not list the several specific actions needed for anchor 4.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' ('Have the agents behind rival answers... check each other's answers, then pick on the evidence') and 'when' ('Use when independent answers to one question disagree... and no test, file or run can settle which is right') with concrete trigger conditions, matching anchor 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'answers... disagree', 'rival answers', 'independent answers', and 'settle which is right' cover the domain well, but common variations such as 'conflicting answers', 'contradict', or 'verify' are missing, fitting anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive coverage of anchor 5 or the partial coverage of anchor 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — adjudicating rival subagent answers when no test or run can settle the question — is highly specific with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills, matching anchor 5 rather than the 'minor overlap risk' of anchor 4.