Conciseness

The body is a mostly tight operational spec — contract fields, result shape, and safety limits all earn their tokens — but the "Verified free models" section carries dated historical narrative (the 2026-07-30 quarantine of six opencode-zen models, the 2026-08-06 free-deterministic probe failure, the 2026-08-21 removals) and inline smoke-test token measurements, none of it placed in a deprecated or old-patterns section as the guidelines require for time-sensitive detail. It is not anchor 2 because there is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the padding is localized to model history that a one-line "retired, not admitted" or the manifest itself could carry.

Actionability

Everything needed to execute is concrete and copy-paste ready: the exact invocation command (".agents/skills/free-agent-execution/scripts/run-free-worker /absolute/path/to/contract.json"), a complete contract JSON example, field-by-field required values and types, the validator command, a full result JSON, and precise success semantics with stable termination_reason values and exit status 2 for usage errors. This matches anchor 5's fully executable, common-cases-covered standard.

Workflow Clarity

The prepare-contract → invoke → interpret-result → review-evidence flow is unambiguous per phase, with real validation checkpoints: the contract's validation.command runs inside the adapter, success is defined exactly ("status is 'succeeded' only when..."), failures return a stable taxonomy plus diagnostic, and the closing step is explicit ("Review changed_files, the Git diff, the diagnostic, and validation evidence before accepting the worker's changes"). It falls short of anchor 5 because the sequence must be assembled from topic sections rather than one ordered list, and there is no explicit error-recovery loop for the frontier after a failed run.

Progressive Disclosure

Section organization is good, inline examples are appropriately sized, and the two scripts the body uses (run-free-worker, validate-routing-manifest) are clearly signaled with correct paths that match the bundle. Minor gaps keep it from anchor 5: the bundled scripts/check-omniroute-catalog is never referenced or described, the link to ../../../docs/free-worker-coordination/README.md does not resolve within the bundle, and the dated model-history narrative would fit better in a reference file or the routing manifest.

Specificity

The description names one concrete, well-qualified action — "Run an explicitly requested, bounded, non-sensitive coding task through the local free-worker adapter using a verified free OpenCode model" — with specific mechanism and constraints, but it is a single action rather than the several specific actions anchor 4 requires. It is well above anchor 2's generic domain labeling because the adapter, model source, and task bounds are all explicit.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Run an explicitly requested, bounded, non-sensitive coding task through the local free-worker adapter") and when ("Use only when the user asks to execute a free worker or free agent and accepts the external-model safety boundary"), with concrete trigger phrases and an additional explicit boundary condition. This matches the anchor-5 example's structure of concrete what plus explicit when.

Trigger Term Quality

The clause "Use only when the user asks to execute a free worker or free agent" supplies the natural phrases a user would say for this niche ("free worker", "free agent", "execute"), plus "free OpenCode model". A few natural variations (e.g., "free model", "free tier", "run on a free model") are missing, so it does not reach anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Terms like "free worker", "free agent", "free OpenCode model", and "external-model safety boundary" define a clear niche with distinct triggers that ordinary coding or delegation skills would not match, giving minimal conflict risk as anchor 5 describes.