Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly lean — a compact scoring table, terse argument docs, exact CLI invocations, and genuinely skill-specific details (IV-from-bid/ask policy, dividend-yield normalization). It slips slightly with the "What is PMCC?" recap of a standard options structure Claude already knows and a few padded caveat sentences in Interpretation, matching the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor rather than the fully lean 5.

Actionability

The scanning workflow is fully executable: exact `uv run python scripts/scan.py ...` commands, documented flags matching the actual argparse in scripts/scan.py, a copy-paste Examples section, and a fully specified output schema. The gap is the report workflow: step 3 directs Claude to "the template defined in `templates/markdown-template.md`", a file that does not exist anywhere in the bundle, so that step cannot be executed as written — a minor-to-moderate gap consistent with anchor 4 rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

Report generation is a clearly numbered 5-step sequence, but the workflow centers on a batch operation (scanning a symbol list) with no explicit validation checkpoint — nothing tells Claude to inspect the documented `errors` array or handle failed/empty results before writing the report. Per the rubric's batch-operation cap, workflow clarity cannot exceed 3 even though the per-symbol error handling exists inside the script itself.

Progressive Disclosure

The structure is well-sectioned and the one-level reference to `scripts/scan.py` resolves to a real file that matches the documented CLI, but the body's other referenced path, `templates/markdown-template.md`, does not exist in the bundle (no templates/ directory). Scored against the actual bundle structure as the rubric requires, a dead reference that breaks navigation of the primary report workflow fits 'references present but not clearly signaled / could be better organized' (3) better than anchor 4's 'references mostly clear'.

Specificity

"Scan stocks for Poor Man's Covered Call (PMCC) suitability" and "Analyzes LEAPS and short call options for delta, liquidity, spread, IV, yield, trend direction, and earnings proximity" list multiple concrete, comprehensive actions covering seven specific metrics. This matches the anchor for comprehensive specific actions; not score 4 because coverage of the capability surface is essentially complete with no gaps, and not below because nothing is vague.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: a concrete 'what' (scan/analyze LEAPS and short calls across seven named metrics) followed by an explicit trigger clause "Use when user asks about PMCC candidates, diagonal spreads, or LEAPS strategies". This mirrors the anchor-5 example structure exactly; the 4 anchor would require a weaker or less explicit 'when', which is not the case.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural triggers include "PMCC candidates", "diagonal spreads", "LEAPS strategies", plus the full name/acronym pair "Poor Man's Covered Call (PMCC)". Good keyword coverage with synonyms, but a few phrases a user would naturally say are missing (e.g., "covered call alternatives", "selling calls against LEAPS"), which matches the 'good coverage, a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

PMCC scanning is a clear niche with distinct triggers, but "LEAPS strategies" and "diagonal spreads" are broad enough to overlap with general options/covered-call scanning skills (the body even references a sibling bullish scanner). Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk against closely related skills — anchor 4, not 5.