Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes competence — commands, flags, exit codes, and thresholds are stated without tutorial padding — but there is duplication: the ≥5-meeting behavioral threshold and the ≥3-per-tag outcome threshold each appear in both Phase 2b and Gotchas, and some coaching-philosophy prose ("The point is not to roast you…") could be trimmed. It is noticeably above anchor 3 (only minor tightening needed), short of anchor 5 due to the repeated threshold statements.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact commands ("minutes list --content-type meeting --limit 5"), a copy-paste stdin pipeline invoking the verified bundled script with the --self flag, a complete JSON output field table, exit-code-specific recovery (exit 3 names found speaker labels to retry with), and concrete output templates. This matches the anchor-5 'copy-paste ready, common cases covered' example.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0→3 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ("Require exit status 0", "Require both sides of the pipeline to exit successfully"), an error-recovery loop for exit code 3, data-sufficiency thresholds that force honest reporting below them, and a no-diarization failure path ("Don't compute talk-time on a transcript without speakers"). This is the anchor-5 pattern of sequence + validation + feedback loops for a batch operation.

Progressive Disclosure

The single bundle file (scripts/mirror_metrics.py — verified to exist and to produce the documented fields, filler/hedge lists, and outcome tags) is referenced cleanly one level deep with its output contract documented inline. However, all mode details, metric tables, and output templates live inline in a ~230-line body with no content split into reference files. Good structure, minor organization gap — anchor 4 rather than 5, where the body is a longer 'everything inline' spec.

Specificity

The description lists comprehensive concrete capabilities ("talk-time ratio, filler words, hedging language, monologue length, energy patterns", "winning meetings looks like vs losing ones"), matching the anchor-5 example — but it is written in second person ("your own behavior across meetings", "what your behavior in winning meetings"), which the rubric penalizes by one point. It is well above anchor 3 because coverage is comprehensive rather than 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: a clear 'what' (named metrics and the win/loss correlation behavior) and a concrete 'when' ("Use this whenever the user says…" followed by a list of literal trigger phrases plus a behavioral trigger about curiosity about one's own performance). This is the anchor-5 pattern.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger coverage is comprehensive and natural: "how did I do", "review my last meeting", "mirror", "self-review", "show my patterns", "coach me", "where am I weak", "am I improving", "feedback on me", plus a catch-all for "any kind of personal feedback on their own meeting behavior". This matches the anchor-5 level of including synonyms and phrasing users would actually say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (self-analysis of one's own meeting behavior, distinct signals like "mirror" and "how did I do"), but the closing instruction to "surface it whenever they show curiosity about their own performance, even if they don't use the word 'mirror'" plus generic triggers like "review my last meeting" create minor overlap risk with general meeting-summary or coaching skills. Not 5 due to that breadth; clearly above 3 because the domain is well bounded.