Conciseness

The body is dense, domain-specific methodology with essentially no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and the worked example is arithmetically consistent. Minor redundancy between Steps 2-4 and the Best Practices/Common Pitfalls sections (e.g., the success-only P50 warning appears in both Step 4 and Pitfalls) keeps it below anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully actionable: a concrete mutually-exclusive outcome taxonomy table, an explicit field-preservation list, copy-paste-ready metric formulas, denominator reconciliation checks, and a complete worked numeric example (48/108 = 44.4%, 72/120 = 60.0%) covering the common case.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps (freeze contract, build ledger, lock denominators, latency/cost populations, uncertainty, decision gates) with explicit validation checkpoints: ledger sums must reconcile to N_all/N_eval/T_all, zero denominators yield 'unavailable' and 'inconclusive' gates, and non-equivalent conditions are flagged. No destructive or batch operations, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single ~125-line file is consistently sectioned (Overview, When to Use, six steps, Example, Best Practices, Limitations, Pitfalls) making it easy to navigate. It exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception and keeps all detail inline, fitting anchor 4's 'good structure, most content appropriately placed' rather than the reference-split structure of anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('summarizing agent evaluations') and one concrete action plus a precise constraint ('autonomous, assisted, failed, timed-out, or invalid outcomes must remain distinct and comparable'), matching the anchor for domain plus 1-2 concrete actions. It does not list several specific actions (no mention of rates, denominators, or decision gates), so it falls short of anchor 4.

Completeness

Both 'what' ('summarizing agent evaluations... outcomes must remain distinct and comparable') and an explicit 'when' ('Use when summarizing...') are present. The 'what' is thin — a single verb with no concrete capabilities like rate reporting or gate evaluation — so it does not clearly match anchor 5's fully explicit what-and-when.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — 'summarizing', 'agent evaluations', 'outcomes', 'failed', 'timed-out' — that a user reporting eval runs would plausibly say. A few natural terms are missing (e.g., 'report', 'benchmark', 'success rate', 'eval results'), keeping it below the comprehensive-synonyms coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (outcome-population-distinct evaluation reporting) with distinctive trigger vocabulary ('autonomous, assisted, timed-out, invalid'), but the phrase 'agent evaluations' overlaps with the closely related @agent-evaluation skill, giving minor overlap risk consistent with anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.