Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no generic bash or secret-management explanations. Minor trimmable padding: the intro's last sentence ("It might configure third-party services, run a one-off migration, or move the project from one state to another") restates the description's trigger list, and it re-describes UX details ("opens each URL, says exactly what to click and copy...") that template.sh already embodies. This puts it between anchors 4 and 5, closer to efficient-with-minor-trims than to every-token-earns-its-place.

Actionability

Highly concrete: names the exact helpers ("stage, say/step, open_url, ask/ask_secret, write_env, set_secret/set_var, pause/confirm"), exact verification commands ("bash -n <script>", "shellcheck", "chmod +x"), and exact repo files to scan (".env, .env.example, .github/workflows/*"). Not anchor 5 because stage authoring is never shown — no inline example of one stage — and "Copy template.sh to the target path. Replace the example stage..." delegates entirely to a file; guidance is executable only if that file exists (see progressive_disclosure).

Workflow Clarity

Four numbered phases each end in an explicit checkpoint ("**Done when:** every stage is named in order..."), the user confirms the stage list before authoring, "confirm before any irreversible action" gates destructive steps, and a dedicated verification phase runs bash -n/shellcheck plus a static trace ("every set_secret name exactly matches a secrets.* reference in CI") with clear feedback on what to check. This matches the anchor's sequence-with-explicit-validation-and-checklists pattern.

Progressive Disclosure

Per the guideline to score against the actual bundle structure and referenced paths: the body's single external reference, "[template.sh](template.sh)", is a dangling link — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist and template.sh is absent from the bundle. Since the skill's central asset ("Copy template.sh to the target path") is missing, the disclosure chain fails at its only link. Not 1 because the body itself is well-sectioned rather than a monolith; not 3 because a broken reference to the skill's core dependency is worse than a present-but-unclearly-signaled one.

Specificity

"Generate an interactive bash wizard that walks a human through steps only they can perform" names a concrete artifact (interactive bash wizard) and its mechanism (step-by-step, human-only steps). It falls short of anchor 5 because it lists a single skill action and omits the wizard's concrete capabilities (capturing values, writing .env/GitHub secrets), but exceeds anchor 3's minimal 1-2 generic actions because the mechanism is fully specified.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Generate an interactive bash wizard that walks a human through steps only they can perform") and when ("Use when provisioning infrastructure, setting up credentials or CI secrets, walking an unfamiliar third-party dashboard, or running a one-off migration or cutover"), plus a negative boundary ("Don't invoke this for steps the agent can perform itself") that sharpens the trigger.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would actually say are well covered: "provisioning infrastructure", "setting up credentials or CI secrets", "walking an unfamiliar third-party dashboard", "one-off migration or cutover". Not anchor 5 because a few natural synonyms (e.g., "onboarding", "runbook", "walk me through setup") are missing, though coverage is clearly above the midpoint.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche: generating a human-in-the-loop wizard for steps only a person can perform. The exclusion clause "Don't invoke this for steps the agent can perform itself" explicitly separates it from generic setup/automation skills, minimizing conflict risk.