Conciseness

The 'Important reminders' section ('Read bundle files selectively', 'Every dimension id from each rubric must appear...', 'All scores must be within scale.min–scale.max') restates rules already given in Steps 1, 3, and 5, but the body otherwise assumes competence with no concept explanations and no padding. This fits anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than 5's every-token-earns-its-place.

Actionability

Concrete and executable throughout: exact paths ('./rubrics/', './config.json'), exact formulas ('normalizedScore = (weightedScore - scale.min) / (scale.max - scale.min)'), copy-paste JSON output templates for both the evaluation object and results.json, and explicit failure handling ('set success: false and populate errorMessage'). Fully actionable guidance for an instruction-only skill.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps (read → discover → run judges → compute → write) with an explicit error-recovery branch for failed judges and a constraint checklist ('results.json must be valid JSON conforming to schemas/results.schema.json'). However, there is no explicit verification action confirming the written output conforms before finishing — a minor validation gap matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's explicit validate-and-recover loop.

Progressive Disclosure

A well-sectioned single-file workflow whose only external reference ('schemas/results.schema.json') is one level deep, but that cited path does not resolve in the actual bundle — the schema lives at 'references/schemas/results.schema.json'. That minor navigation/organization gap fits anchor 4 ('references mostly clear; minor organization gaps') rather than 5's clean, easy navigation.

Specificity

Quotes: 'Evaluate a SKILL.md for quality', 'dynamically discovers the rubric files', 'scores the skill against each, producing one result per rubric' — multiple concrete actions covering the entire workflow (discovery, scoring, per-rubric output), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. Not 4 because no concrete action in the chain is missing or generic.

Completeness

Explicit 'what' ('dynamically discovers the rubric files and scores the skill against each, producing one result per rubric') paired with an explicit trigger clause ('Use when running a skill review workflow or testing skill quality against configurable rubrics') — clearly and concretely answers both what and when, matching the anchor-5 example pattern.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: 'skill review workflow', 'testing skill quality against configurable rubrics', 'SKILL.md', 'rubric files' — good natural phrases a user would actually say. Not 5 because coverage lacks common synonym variations (e.g., 'audit a skill', 'grade a skill', 'score a skill'); not 3 because the core natural triggers are all present and specific.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — rubric-based SKILL.md quality evaluation — is distinct, and its triggers ('skill review workflow', 'configurable rubrics') are unlikely to fire competing skills. Not 4 because no closely related skill in this domain would plausibly collide on these phrases.