Conciseness

The body is lean and dense with no padded explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every sentence carries operational weight ('Line-count reduction is supporting evidence, not the objective'), matching anchor 5.

Actionability

The instruction-only guidance is mostly concrete — a copy-paste proof-record template, enumerated keep/downgrade conditions, and mode/scope selection rules — but discovery instruments are described abstractly ('Use repository-native search, compiler and linter output') with no worked example of a completed proof record, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence (select mode/scope → establish contract → cover surface → build proof record → decide → deliver) with explicit validation checkpoints appropriate to a potentially destructive skill: baseline capture ('capture a proportional baseline'), 'the smallest check that would expose an incorrect cut', and the required validation and operation receipt.

Progressive Disclosure

The body serves as a clear overview with five conditionally-signaled, one-level-deep references ('For every Broad engagement... read investigation.md'; 'In Change mode, read execution-and-recovery.md'), all of which exist as real files in references/, with detail appropriately split out of SKILL.md.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete, specific actions — 'evidence-backed deletion or consolidation of dead code, duplicate state, redundant APIs or layers, ownerless abstractions, obsolete compatibility or design records, and over-engineering' — covering the candidate space comprehensively, which matches the anchor 5 example's breadth.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (simplification audit / removal of accidental complexity via deletion and consolidation of enumerated candidate types) and 'when' ('Use for...' with concrete triggers, plus 'Do not use for...' exclusions), matching anchor 5 exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage including natural terms like 'dead code', 'duplicate', 'redundant APIs', and cross-language synonyms ('代码简化 or 熵回收'), but common English phrasings users would naturally say such as 'clean up the code' or 'remove unused code' are absent, fitting anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit exclusion clause 'Do not use for general code review, onboarding, style-only refactoring, or performance tuning' disambiguates it from adjacent skills, giving it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk as anchor 5 requires.