Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence, but "The Problem" section ("Specifications live in documents. They drift from reality because nothing enforces them.") restates motivation Claude already knows and could be trimmed to its three requirement bullets. This matches anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed') rather than anchor 5.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout: the fixture template ("## Input / ## Output"), domain-to-format mappings ("Grid/spatial problems → ASCII art"), the implementation checklist ("1. Parser… 2. Formatter… 3. Single test file discovers and runs all fixtures"), and the '<5 seconds' validation test. Falls short of anchor 5 only because no inline example fixture or runner sketch appears in the body — the concrete examples live in the reference file.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear — write fixtures before implementation, one-time parser/formatter/runner setup, and 'Implementation is driven by making these specs pass' provides an implicit feedback loop, with 'Can someone validate correctness in <5 seconds?' as an explicit design checkpoint. Not anchor 5 because there is no explicit validate/fix/retry guidance in the body for when specs fail; no destructive or batch operations are involved, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

A clear overview appropriately split across real, one-level-deep references: both [references/approved-fixtures.md] and [references/approved-logs.md] exist as linked files, and related techniques are cleanly delegated to '/approval-tests' and '/nullables' instead of being inlined. This matches anchor 5 ('clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split').

Specificity

"Scannable BDD tests written in domain language" names the domain and concretely characterizes the deliverable, but contains no explicit action verbs and omits the approval-fixture technique entirely. It sits between anchors 2 and 3 — the specific characterization of the artifact lifts it above 'actions minimal or generic', but it does not list several concrete actions needed for anchor 4.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the what ("Scannable BDD tests written in domain language") and the when ("Use when doing BDD"), matching anchor 4 ('both present; when could be more explicit or specific'). Not anchor 5 because the when-clause lacks concrete trigger phrases and variations; not anchor 3 because the when is explicit rather than merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

The only natural trigger term is "BDD" ("Use when doing BDD"); common variations like "behavior-driven development", "acceptance tests", "executable specifications", and "approval tests" are all absent. This matches anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') and falls short of anchor 4 because more than a few natural terms are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Use when doing BDD" carves a distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against general testing or TDD skills, matching anchor 4. Not anchor 5 because the approval-tests angle appears only in the skill name, not the description, so users asking about approval or golden-master testing might not trigger this skill.