Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — flag tables, one-line explanations, no padding explaining what cyclomatic complexity is. Minor trims exist: "per the [Lizard README]" is repeated, the intro re-lists languages already covered by the description, and default values are stated both in prose and in the flag table (anchor 4, not the fully lean anchor 5).

Actionability

Every step gives copy-paste-ready commands (pip install, lizard src/ with concrete -x/-C/-L/-a values, --csv/-X/-H outputs, an exit-code-driven CI snippet, -l language scoping), and the anti-patterns table pairs each failure mode with a specific fix. This matches anchor 5's fully executable, common-case-covering guidance; the only soft spot ("run the standalone script: python lizard.py" without saying where lizard.py comes from) is mitigated by the linked repo.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–6 are clearly sequenced from install to CI enforcement, and Step 5 includes an explicit exit-code checkpoint ("EXIT=$?; if [ \"$EXIT\" -ne 0 ]..."), which is real validation. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no feedback loop for what to do after a breach — no guidance on identifying the offending functions from the report and re-scanning — though the read-only analysis means the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The single file is well-organized with purposeful sections (When to use, numbered steps, Anti-patterns, Limitations, References) and one clearly signaled, one-level-deep external reference. It is a ~120-line skill rather than the under-50-line case that can score 5 on sections alone, and content like the per-language scoping or anti-patterns table could live in reference files, so anchor 4 fits better than 5.

Specificity

"Runs Lizard (30+ languages) on production code to enforce per-function cyclomatic complexity, length and parameter-count thresholds, excluding tests" names several concrete actions (CCN, length, parameter-count thresholds, test exclusion). It stops short of comprehensive coverage — the CI output formats and fail-on-warning behavior that make up half the skill are absent, so it fits anchor 4 rather than 5.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: "Use when a multi-language codebase needs one complexity gate, or a function has grown unreviewable and CI needs a number" (when, with concrete trigger phrases) and "Runs Lizard (30+ languages) ... to enforce per-function cyclomatic complexity, length and parameter-count thresholds" (what). This matches anchor 5; anchor 4's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply since the when clause gives three specific triggering scenarios.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases like "needs one complexity gate", "a function has grown unreviewable", "CI needs a number", and "cyclomatic complexity" are present and would plausibly be said by developers. A few common variants ("CCN", "code complexity", "function too long") are missing, matching anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is distinct — a Lizard-based per-function cyclomatic-complexity gate on production code excluding tests — with clear triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. The body even explicitly hands off cognitive complexity to a separate sonarqube skill, confirming minimal conflict risk (anchor 5).