Conciseness

The body is dense and operational, but includes minor commentary that could be trimmed ("These are your plugin's strengths. Leave them alone.", "This is where fixes have the highest impact.") and long illustrative output blocks that pad the token budget — matching the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor rather than the lean 'every token earns its place' level.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste-ready commands ("tessl eval run <path/to/plugin> --label <run-label>", the jq filter for skipForcedContextActivation), exact decision thresholds (">= 80% of max"), verbatim user-facing prompts, and worked before/after examples covering the common cases — matching the top anchor; it is not the 'minor gaps' level.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-phase workflow (Phase 0 through 5) is explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints at every risky step: lint after each fix (3.3), poll for completion with retry on failure (4.4), before/after verification (4.5), and explicit stopping criteria — matching the anchor with feedback loops and checkpoints; edits are user-approved and validated, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

References exist but are not clearly signaled or resolvable: "phase5-view-results.md" is cited three times (Phase 0.4) with no path and does not exist in this bundle, and the ~380-line monolith inlines material (run-label catalogue, Phase 0.4 analysis procedures) that belongs in reference files — matching the 'references present but not clearly signaled' anchor rather than the well-organized level 4.

Specificity

Lists five concrete actions covering the entire improvement cycle ("Run task evals, analyze results, diagnose failures, apply targeted fixes, and re-run to verify improvements"), which matches the comprehensive-coverage anchor; no part of the workflow is left out, so it is not the level below.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: a clear what (the five-action cycle) and an explicit "Use when..." clause with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the top anchor; the 'when' is not weakly implied, so it is not a 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural user phrasings with synonyms — "debugging evaluation scores", "eval criteria pass or fail", "failing or regressed criteria", "before/after score improvements", "improving agent performance based on eval evidence" — matching the comprehensive synonym-coverage anchor rather than the 'a few natural terms missing' level.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

All triggers are anchored to evals, scores, and criteria (even "improving agent performance" is qualified with "based on eval evidence"), giving a clear niche with minimal conflict risk; the broadest phrase is still eval-specific, so it is not the mostly-distinct level.