Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no concept explanations, no padding, just a delegation instruction ("Read [the detailed guide](references/detailed-guide.md) before executing this skill") plus trigger and limitation sections. It falls short of anchor 5 only because the 'When to Use' list repeats the filler phrase 'or related topics' six times, which could collapse into one line; there is no verbosity approaching anchor 3's unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

The only executable directive in the body is to read the reference file; there is no inline quick-start, example, or concrete step for the actual task (legal analysis), so the body 'describes rather than instructs' with just a high-level pointer. This matches anchor 2 (high-level hints, missing specific steps to execute); it is above anchor 1 because the delegation path and trigger conditions are concrete, but below anchor 3-4 because nothing in the body itself is actionable without loading the guide.

Workflow Clarity

The body contains no sequence or validation checkpoints whatsoever — the multi-step legal workflow lives entirely in references/detailed-guide.md, so from the body alone the process is 'delegated but invisible.' This sits at anchor 3 (sequence present but checkpoints missing/implicit — here implicit via the reference); it is below anchor 4 because no step or checkpoint is surfaced in the body, and above anchor 2 because the delegation is unambiguous and the guide does carry a structured workflow. The skill is not destructive/batch, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: SKILL.md is a clean overview pointing one level deep to a clearly signaled references/detailed-guide.md, but references/fontes.md (5KB of legislation sources) is never referenced from SKILL.md or the guide — an unreachable bundle file — and detailed-guide.md itself points to `advogado-criminal/SKILL.md`, a path that does not exist in this bundle (a broken second-level reference). This fits anchor 3 (some structure, but references not fully discoverable/organized); the orphaned file and dead pointer are more than the 'minor organization gaps' of anchor 4.

Specificity

The description claims a role — "Advogado especialista em todas as areas do Direito brasileiro" — and lists nine domains ("familia, criminal, trabalhista, tributario, consumidor, imobiliario, empresarial, civil e constitucional"), but names zero concrete actions (e.g., analyze cases, cite legislation, draft petitions). This matches anchor 2 (domain named, actions minimal or generic); it does not reach anchor 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions, and is above anchor 1 because the domain enumeration is specific, not pure abstraction.

Completeness

The 'what' is reasonably clear in scope (specialist coverage of nine named law areas) but there is no 'when' clause at all — no "Use when..." or equivalent trigger guidance in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is above anchor 2 because the 'what' is not vague (domains are enumerated), but below anchor 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some natural keywords a Brazilian user would say — "Advogado", "Direito brasileiro", and the area names "familia", "criminal", "trabalhista" — but misses the common variations and synonyms users actually lead with ("divorcio", "guarda", "pensao", "acao", "processo", "CLT", "CDC"). This fits anchor 3 (relevant keywords but missing common variations/synonyms); not anchor 4 because the everyday phrasings are largely absent, not just 'a few' missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Brazilian-law and Portuguese framing gives it a recognizable niche, but "todas as areas do Direito" (all areas of law) spans nine broad domains, creating overlap risk with any general legal-assistance or jurisdiction-specific skill. This matches anchor 3 (somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills); it is below anchor 4 because the 'all areas' breadth invites conflicts, and above anchor 2 because the Brazilian/Portuguese scope is far from generic.