Conciseness

The body is tight prose that assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining basics (what an eval is, what a judge is); each sentence carries review guidance. Not a 5 because a few phrases are ornate ('a score comes back looking like evidence when it is not', 'has handed over the reasoning under test') and could be trimmed; not a 3 because there is no padded over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Gives concrete reviewer moves ('Read the task as the agent under test sees it, with the skill absent', 'read the task beside the skill... sentence by sentence') and an explicit Reporting checklist (quote the line, name the two verdicts, state the observable). Not a 5 because the Method is procedural prose rather than copy-paste-ready steps; not a 3 because the guidance is specific and executable for an instruction-only skill.

Workflow Clarity

The Method is a clear ordered sequence (task first → read absent the skill → read beside the skill → take the criteria → map changed instructions to criteria), with the Threshold section acting as a report/don't-report decision checkpoint. Not a 5 because there is no explicit feedback loop or error-recovery checklist; not a 3 because the sequence and decision rules are clearly present. The destructive/batch validation cap does not apply to an analytical review skill.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and is organized into clearly signaled sections (Scope, Method, Threshold, Reporting), satisfying the simple-skill exception for a 5. Not a 4 because no content is misplaced or under-signaled; the structure is clean and navigable.

Specificity

Names the domain (eval scenarios) and what to check for ('whether the task can discriminate', 'whether a judge... reaches the same verdict twice'), but the only action verb is 'Review', so it stops at domain-plus-1-2-concrete-concerns rather than multiple concrete actions. Not a 4 because it does not list several specific actions with minor gaps; not a 2 because it goes well beyond a bare domain mention.

Completeness

States the 'what' (review eval-scenario changes for discrimination and verdict stability) and an explicit 'when' ('Use as one lens in a code review run'), satisfying the trigger-guidance requirement that would otherwise cap at 3. Not a 5 because the 'when' is a single clause and could name concrete trigger phrases more explicitly; not a 3 because both what and when are clearly present.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant insider keywords ('eval scenario', 'judge', 'criteria', 'verdict', 'code review run') are present, but they are technical jargon and omit common variations a user might naturally voice. Not a 4 because natural synonyms users would actually say are largely missing; not a 2 because more than one or two generic keywords appear.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (eval-scenario integrity as one review lens) is narrow and distinct, with low trigger conflict risk. Not a 5 because 'Use as one lens in a code review run' leaves minor overlap with other review-lens skills; not a 3 because it is far more specific than a broad 'works with documents'-style description.