Conciseness

The ~12-line body contains zero padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; the heading, target line, injected command, reference, and three steps all earn their tokens, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor. It avoids the anchor-4 territory because there is no over-explanation to trim at all.

Actionability

The injected `find ${target:-.} -type f -maxdepth 2 | head -20` command is executable, but 'Run the helper script using ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}' omits the actual command, 'Produce a report' specifies no output format, and the referenced reference.md does not exist — matching anchor 3's 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'. It falls short of 4 because two of three steps cannot be executed as written.

Workflow Clarity

A numbered 1-2-3 sequence is present, but the steps are underspecified (no helper invocation command, no report structure) and step 1 points to a nonexistent file, matching anchor 3's 'steps listed but gaps'. This is a non-destructive read/report skill so the validation cap does not apply, but it also does not qualify for the simple-skill exception because the steps are not unambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep and clearly signaled ('[reference.md](reference.md) and the helper in scripts/'), but the reference.md link is broken — the file does not exist in the bundle — and the body has minimal section organization, matching anchor 3's 'some structure but could be better organized'. It is above anchor 2 because nothing is inlined that belongs in a separate file and references are not buried.

Specificity

The description names some concepts ('rich frontmatter, dynamic injection and substitutions') but contains no action verbs describing what the skill actually does, matching anchor 2's 'actions are minimal or generic'. It is above anchor 1 only because the named concepts are more concrete than pure abstraction like 'Helps with documents'.

Completeness

The description is solely a 'Use when you need...' clause with the 'what' only vaguely implied ('a full-spec example'), exactly matching anchor 2 ('only when is present without what'). It is not a 3 because there is no clear statement of capability, and not a 1 because explicit trigger guidance is present.

Trigger Term Quality

'full-spec', 'dynamic injection', and 'substitutions' are technical jargon a user would not naturally say; only 'example' and 'frontmatter' function as quasi-natural keywords, matching anchor 2 ('one or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say'). It does not reach 3 because common user phrasings are entirely absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill-authoring fixture niche ('full-spec example with rich frontmatter') is somewhat specific, but the generic word 'example' creates overlap risk with other example, demo, or skill-creation skills, matching anchor 3. It lacks the distinct trigger phrases needed for a 4.