Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence throughout — no explanations of known concepts, every section carries distinct content — matching "efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed" at 4. It is not 5 because the ornate, nested prose style (long parenthetical-laden sentences such as the completion-criterion paragraph) costs tokens per instruction that leaner phrasing would not.

Actionability

Concrete, executable heuristics dominate: "The test (does it change behaviour versus the default?)", the co-location test ("reading one part brings its neighbours with it"), the ordered defense "sharpen the bound first… only if it is irreducibly fuzzy", and worked refactors ("fast, deterministic, low-overhead" → _tight_; "a loop you believe in" → _red_). Not 5 because there is no end-to-end worked example applying the framework to a real document.

Workflow Clarity

There is no explicit ordered procedure: the body is a concept catalog (pointers → loads → hierarchy → criteria → pruning) with a discernible but only implied process, and a single conditional routing instruction ("When the document you're writing is a skill, read SKILL-MECHANICS.md"). This sits at anchor 3 — sequence discernible but no explicit steps or checkpoints — and is not capped lower because the material is navigable, not incoherent.

Progressive Disclosure

Judged against the actual bundle, the body's two references to SKILL-MECHANICS.md (for frontmatter/invocation choice, and for split-by-invocation) point to a file that does not exist in the bundle — the one place disclosure is used is broken, so an agent following the pointer reaches nothing. Not 3 because a dangling reference makes the structure unusable in practice rather than merely improvable; the in-file sectioning itself is otherwise good.

Specificity

The 'what' is a single generic action — "Writing documents for agents" — with no concrete sub-actions listed; it names the domain but the actions are minimal, matching the anchor at 2. It is not 3 because the skill-specific artifacts named (skills, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md) appear in the trigger clause, not as descriptions of what the skill does.

Completeness

Both parts are present: "Writing documents for agents" answers what, and "Use when creating or editing skills, or modifying AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md" is an explicit when with concrete triggers. Not 5 because the 'what' is thin — it conveys no concrete capabilities of the skill.

Trigger Term Quality

"creating or editing skills, or modifying AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md" includes natural terms users would say, but misses common variations and synonyms such as "documentation", "docs", "prompts", or "skill description". This is "some relevant keywords but missing common variations", the anchor at 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming specific artifacts (skills, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md) gives the description a distinct niche with minor overlap risk against general writing or documentation skills. It is not 5 because the 'what' ("writing documents") is broad enough to invite overlap.