Conciseness

The body is dense and largely avoids teaching known concepts, but it duplicates content: the validator commands appear verbatim in both the Quick Reference table and the Validation section, and the "never subclass an existing agent" prohibition is stated at length in both Base Class and the Common Mistakes table. Not 4 because these are more than minor trims — whole repeated blocks could be deleted; not 2 because there is no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable: concrete validator commands ($PYTHON_PATH .agentsociety/bin/ags.py create-agent --file ...), a copy-paste extra_skill_paths JSON snippet, a full SKILL.md frontmatter example, named required methods, and a mistakes-to-fixes table. Not 5 because there is no inline agent-class code template — the pointer to artifacts/templates.md is the only source of scaffolding, and that file is absent from the bundle.

Workflow Clarity

The dot-graph pipeline (intake → design → generate → validate → register), stage notes, and the explicit final validator step give a clear sequence with a concrete checkpoint. Not 5 because the error-recovery loop is not explicit in the body — what to do when the validator fails is deferred to stages/validate.md and checklists/compatibility.md, neither of which is present in the bundle.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and the five references/*.md citations resolve to real, one-level-deep files. However, roughly nine referenced paths do not exist in the bundle: stages/intake.md, stages/design.md, stages/generate.md, stages/validate.md, checklists/compatibility.md, subagent-prompts/planner.md, subagent-prompts/implementer.md, subagent-prompts/reviewer.md, and artifacts/templates.md. Not 4 because navigation genuinely breaks at those dangling references; not 2 because the structure that exists is good and the present references are clearly signaled.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("custom agent type", "agent class") but lists only the generic actions "creating or revising" — no concrete operations such as implementing AgentBase/PersonAgent subclasses, placing files under custom/agents/, or running the validator. It is above a 1 because the domain is named and two actions are given, but below a 3 because there is no second concrete, specific action.

Completeness

The "when" is explicit and detailed ("Use when creating or revising... when an experiment needs an agent class that does not yet exist... sized against a simulation budget"), but the "what" is only weakly implied — the description never states what the skill actually does (write subclasses, validate, register). Not 4 because anchor 4 requires both present with only the "when" being imprecise; here the imbalance is reversed and the "what" is effectively missing.

Trigger Term Quality

"creating", "revising", "custom agent type", "agent class", "experiment", "simulation budget" are natural phrasings a user of this framework would say, giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of 5 because common variations like "new agent", "define an agent", or the base-class names (AgentBase/PersonAgent) are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (custom agent classes for this simulation framework) is distinct and the triggers would not fire for environment-module or discovery tasks. Not 5 because "creating or revising a custom agent type" is broad enough to slightly overlap adjacent skills like experiment-config or scan-modules in edge cases.