Conciseness

The body is lean with no concept explanations Claude already knows — a short pointer to the detailed guide, trigger lists, and limitations. It falls short of the lean anchor because of mechanical repetition ("or related topics" repeated in all six trigger bullets) and boilerplate filler like "The task is unrelated to 007" and "A simpler, more specific tool can handle the request", which earn little per token.

Actionability

The only concrete instruction in the body is "Read [the detailed guide](references/detailed-guide.md) before executing this skill" — a pointer with no steps, commands, or code, and the body never mentions the executable bundle in scripts/ (full_audit.py, quick_scan.py, score_calculator.py) at all. This matches the anchor of minimal concrete guidance with high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute; it is above score 1 only because the pointer is an explicit, real, actionable directive.

Workflow Clarity

This skill is a multi-mode, six-phase audit process, yet the body contains no sequenced steps — the entire workflow is delegated to the guide, leaving only a rough read-then-execute order with many gaps. It is not score 1 because the directive to load guide sections for focused work vs. reading completely gives a coherent, if minimal, order; it cannot be higher since no phases, modes, or validation checkpoints appear in the body itself.

Progressive Disclosure

The body's single reference is well-signaled and one level deep (detailed-guide.md exists), but scoring against the actual bundle reveals problems: the guide cross-references 10 files of which 5 do not exist (hardening-linux.md, hardening-windows.md, payment-security.md, bot-security.md, compliance-matrix.md), and the scripts/ directory plus 4 other reference files are never surfaced in the body. This fits the anchor of some structure with organizational gaps — better than buried or monolithic, but not the good-structure anchor given the broken paths and undiscoverable bundle resources.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "Security audit, hardening, threat modeling (STRIDE/PASTA), Red/Blue Team, OWASP checks, code review, incident response, and infrastructure security" — naming specific frameworks (STRIDE/PASTA, OWASP) rather than generic language. This matches the anchor for comprehensive coverage of specific concrete actions; it is not score 4 because there are no meaningful gaps in the action list, only the breadth qualifier "for any project".

Completeness

The "what" is clear and comprehensive, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the description is a pure capability list. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3, which is exactly the anchor for a clear 'what' with 'when' missing or only weakly implied; it cannot be 4 without any explicit 'when'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ("security audit", "threat model", "hardening", "STRIDE"), giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of the comprehensive anchor because common synonyms such as "pentest", "vulnerability assessment", or "penetration testing" are absent (they appear only in frontmatter tags, not the description).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Distinctive frameworks (STRIDE/PASTA, OWASP, Red/Blue Team) give it a recognizable niche, but "code review" overlaps with general code-review skills, "incident response" and "infrastructure security" are broad, and "for any project" widens the net considerably. This fits the anchor for somewhat specific but still overlapping with similar skills, not the mostly-distinct anchor above.