Conciseness

The body is dense with rules and almost never explains concepts Claude already knows, but several sections are wall-of-text paragraphs that could be materially tightened — the Step 1c 'Deny-list floor' paragraph, 'Budget posture', and 'Conversation scope' each pack many conditions into single run-on blocks, and the PowerShell launcher command is repeated in Step 2. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than anchor 4, where only minor trimming would be needed.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste Bash and PowerShell blocks with candidate-path fallback and explicit failure exits ('BASH_ENV= ENV= /bin/bash -p "$HEALTH_SCRIPT" "$HEALTH_SCOPE"'), an exact finding format with a worked example, a mandated copy-pasteable 'Action:' line ('Never write "investigate X"... name the diagnostic command'), and concrete severity definitions. Not below 5: no pseudocode or vague directives remain; the '<skill-base-dir>' placeholder is resolved by the included fallback logic.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0→1→1b→1c→2 are clearly sequenced with real checkpoints: '(unavailable)' sections are defined as insufficient data rather than findings, deep audits must 'wait for every launched inspector and reconcile its assigned scope', and the Gotchas table gives error-recovery rules. Not 5: the summary-mode analysis step itself is thin ('Analyze locally from the summary output by default') and defers detail to references, and the escalation feedback loop is stated as policy rather than as an explicit validate-and-branch step.

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep, clearly signaled with purpose ('load references/long-running-agents.md and audit the four hard stop signals it lists'), and all three files in references/ exist with real content; the large scripts/ bundle is appropriately kept out of the body. Not 5: the three 'agents/inspector-*.md' paths cited in Step 2 do not exist in the shipped bundle (no agents/ directory), leaving dangling navigation for the deep-audit path, and some inline policy blocks (deny-list calibrations, instruction-drift rules) are long enough to belong in references.

Specificity

The description enumerates several specific audit surfaces — 'agent config, instruction drift, hooks or MCP, and AI maintainability' — which is broader than anchor 3's '1-2 concrete actions'. Not 5: it names domains rather than comprehensive concrete actions (e.g., permissions, memory/skill supply chain, verifier coverage are only discoverable in the body).

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: what ('Audits agent config, instruction drift, hooks or MCP, and AI maintainability') and when ('Use when Claude, Codex, or Pi setup looks wrong'), plus a negative boundary. Not 5: the when-clause is a single colloquial condition ('setup looks wrong') rather than the multiple concrete trigger phrases of the anchor-5 example, so it 'could be more explicit or specific' per anchor 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural triggers are present: 'Claude, Codex, or Pi setup looks wrong' plus 'hooks or MCP' gives good keyword coverage users would actually say. Not 5: common phrasings like 'settings', 'agent instructions', or 'ignoring instructions' are missing from the description field itself (they appear only in the separate when_to_use field, which is not the evaluated target).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — agent configuration and AI-maintainability audits for named runtimes — with explicit disambiguation ('Not for application bugs or PR review') that prevents overlap with code-review and debugging skills. It matches anchor 5's 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' and is more self-disambiguating than the anchor-4 example, which lacks exclusions.