Conciseness

The body runs ~186 lines / ~47KB of dense run-on prose; the Findings, 'What a pass proves', and Coverage record sections carry exhaustive historical detail — commit hashes (da4bc3e523, 03d633b0b6), per-bound failure counts, and timing measurements like 'in about 26 s with the load average near 15' — that is project-specific but heavily padded. It is not a 1 because almost none of it explains concepts Claude already knows; it is noticeably verbose with much that could be trimmed or moved to reference files.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready and cover the common cases: 'pnpm check:authored-order', flag forms like '--marks=3', '--blocks=3', '--family=lift', '--giveback-script=<script>', '--lower', plus the sync-check 'git log --oneline b2228e62ef..HEAD -- ...'. A real failure output is shown with its exact format, and expected document counts and exit behavior are given for each bound.

Workflow Clarity

The four modes are sequenced up front ('check... deep... lower... update...') and the failure path has explicit checkpoints: unchecked documents exit 1 before anything else, triage into real bug / modeling error / intended change, then fix and run '--lower', with validation rules ('--lower' refuses a new entry, the baseline never grows). It misses 5 because the workflow is scattered across very long sections and the density makes the sequence hard to follow on first read.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files at all, and content that clearly belongs in separate references — the full Findings history, the coverage-record tables, and the planted-bug results — is inlined in the SKILL.md itself. Section headers are clear and consistently used, which lifts it above the 'minimal structure' of a 2, but a 186-line monolith with obvious extractable material cannot score higher.

Specificity

The description states two concrete verification actions in third person — 'deciding the authored review tree's pending changes one at a time, in any order, gives the document that deciding them all at once gives' and 'no change adds a set of verdicts a reviewer can only decide together, for every document up to a bound'. It falls short of the 5 anchor because it names one checking activity rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, and its phrasing is dense enough that the actions take effort to parse.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is the order-independence and coupled-set property checked 'for every document up to a bound', and the 'when' opens with 'Use before and after changing... or another file in its coverage record, when the authored-order step of pnpm check fails, when fixing a decision-order bug, or when recording gains a new kind of mark' — concrete trigger phrases throughout.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers like 'when the authored-order step of pnpm check fails', 'when fixing a decision-order bug', 'when recording gains a new kind of mark', and the concrete path 'packages/plitejs/src/authored/tree/resolve.ts' are the natural phrases this repo's developers would say. It lacks the synonyms and variations of the 5 anchor, so it sits at good-but-not-comprehensive coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is unmistakable — 'authored review tree', a specific resolver file path, and the named 'authored-order' check step — so it is clearly distinguishable from any other skill and would not trigger for the wrong one.