Conciseness

The body is lean throughout: a compact lane table, a minimal annotation template, terse naming globs, and one dense but purposeful route-parity paragraph. No padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, matching anchor 5 ('every token earns its place') rather than anchor 4, which requires trimmable over-explanation.

Actionability

The annotation block ('AC:', 'Behavior:', '@lane:', '@dependency:', 'Selection evidence:') is copy-paste ready and the naming conventions give exact patterns ('*.int.test.*', 'tests/e2e/fixture/'). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no worked example of a complete annotated test, and the route-parity section gives comparison criteria without a concrete application; it exceeds anchor 3 because the templates are complete and executable, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Content is organized by topic (lanes, annotations, naming, route parity) rather than as a sequenced process, and validation checkpoints are implicit — e.g., there is no step verifying '@lane:' consistency with declared dependencies before finalizing a file, and route-parity review is compressed into one paragraph without an ordered check flow. This matches anchor 3 ('sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'), not 4 (checkpoints are not mostly present) and not 2 (the per-topic guidance itself is well-defined).

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no external bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) and no need for them; sections are clearly headed and well-organized. Per the rubric guideline, this earns anchor 5 for a short, self-contained skill.

Specificity

The description lists several specific deliverables — 'skeleton annotations, lane and file contracts, and route-parity review criteria' — but these are contract-like abstractions rather than fully concrete actions, and coverage has minor gaps (e.g., naming conventions are not mentioned). This matches anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'), not 5 (not comprehensive) and not 3 (more than 1-2 specific items are named).

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the 'what' ('Defines integration/E2E skeleton annotations, lane and file contracts, and route-parity review criteria') and the 'when' ('Use when generating or consuming test skeletons or reviewing shared mutation routes'). The 'when' clause is present and fairly concrete but narrow and technical, fitting anchor 4 ('when could be more explicit or specific') better than anchor 5's comprehensive concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present — 'generating or consuming test skeletons', 'reviewing shared mutation routes', 'integration/E2E' — giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of anchor 5 because common variations users would naturally say (e.g., 'writing integration tests', 'end-to-end tests') are missing, but it clearly exceeds anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Niche triggers like 'test skeletons', 'route-parity', and 'shared mutation routes' establish a clear, specialized domain with low conflict risk. It is not anchor 5 because 'generating test skeletons' could still overlap with generic test-generation skills; it is well above anchor 3's broad overlap risk.