Conciseness

Every sentence carries non-obvious domain judgment ('Root cause — the underlying fragility, not just the trigger', 'If detection was already fast but recovery was slow, prefer mitigation over more alerts') with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The 55-line body is lean and every token earns its place, matching anchor 5.

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: named categories with examples (rate limiting, load shedding, circuit breaker), explicit disqualification examples ('be careful', 'add review', 'remind'), a five-part alert bar, and a defined output format (priority, action, one-sentence rationale). The minor gap is the absence of a worked example of a ranked follow-up entry, keeping it just below anchor 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

The five steps (gather → load existing follow-ups → map to categories → apply bar → rank) are clearly sequenced, with explicit decision checkpoints for each contingency: unknown root cause (recommend deep-investigation first), repeat incident (raise priority), and nothing clearing the bar (say so rather than invent items). The skill is read-only and non-destructive, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single ~55-line task with no content that belongs in external reference files; sections (Procedure, Result, Boundaries) are well-organized and the only cross-reference is to a sibling skill (deep-investigation) where it is decision-relevant. Per the simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections with no need for external references warrant anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain clearly ('incident follow-up actions') and one concrete action ('Suggest high-leverage... follow-up actions'), but lists only a single verb rather than several specific actions like ranking, categorizing, or prioritizing. It matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' and falls below anchor 4, which expects several listed specific actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ('Suggest high-leverage incident follow-up actions from established root cause and incident context') and when ('Activate when asked for follow-ups, action items, preventive measures, or "what should we do so this doesn't happen again" after an incident') with concrete trigger phrases. This mirrors the anchor-5 exemplar structure directly.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural triggers are strong — 'follow-ups, action items, preventive measures' plus a realistic verbatim user phrase ('what should we do so this doesn't happen again') — but common synonyms users say after incidents, such as 'postmortem', 'post-incident review', or 'lessons learned', are missing. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing fits anchor 4; it is not comprehensive enough for anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The incident-follow-ups niche is well carved out with distinct triggers ('after an incident', 'established root cause'), but terms like 'action items' and 'preventive measures' have minor overlap with adjacent skills such as postmortem-writing or deep investigation. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk against closely related skills fits anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.