Conciseness

Mostly efficient but includes explanations of concepts Claude already knows (the Ishikawa 6M taxonomy, common vs. special cause variation, Cp/Cpk definitions, Western Electric rule definitions) and notable duplication — "How It Works" restates the NCR Lifecycle, CAPA closure criteria appear in both "CAPA System" and "Decision Frameworks", the inspection-level table repeats the AQL switching rules, and the over-adjustment warning appears twice — placing it at the "could be tightened" anchor 3 rather than the minor-trim anchor 4.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout — specific thresholds (Cpk ≥ 1.33, rework cost > 60% of replacement), a model CAPA ("Add torque verification step at Station 12 with calibrated torque wrench (±2%)… WI-4401 Rev C"), bad/good contrasts, and precedence-ordered decision sequences — but the templates self-describe as "Brief templates… Adapt them" and edge cases are explicitly deferred summaries ("Brief summaries are included here so you can expand them into project-specific playbooks"), leaving minor gaps that keep it below fully-executable anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The lifecycle (detect → contain → classify → investigate → disposition → corrective action with verification) is clearly sequenced, validation is explicit ("verify effectiveness, and close the CAPA with evidence"), feedback loops exist for error recovery ("If recurrence occurs, the CAPA is not effective — reopen and re-investigate"), and checklists are provided (the 4-point CAPA Effectiveness Verification list), matching anchor 5; anchor 4 is ruled out because checkpoints and recovery loops are present rather than mostly present.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized with clear headers and tables, but the entire ~240-line knowledge base (regulatory frameworks, SPC chart selection, supplier scorecards, escalation tables) is inlined in a single SKILL.md with no reference files at all, and the body itself acknowledges material that should be separate ("so you can expand them into project-specific playbooks") — matching anchor 3's "content that should be separate is inline" rather than anchor 4's appropriately-placed content.

Specificity

Lists several concrete capability areas ("NCR lifecycle management, CAPA systems, SPC interpretation, and audit methodology") with only minor coverage gaps, but the "Informed by quality engineers with 15+ years experience" sentence is credential fluff that adds no capability information, keeping it below the comprehensive-and-lean anchor 5.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Codified expertise for quality control, non-conformance investigation, root cause analysis, corrective action, and supplier quality management… Includes NCR lifecycle management, CAPA systems, SPC interpretation, and audit methodology") and when ("Use when investigating non-conformances, performing root cause analysis, managing CAPAs, interpreting SPC data, or handling supplier quality issues") with concrete trigger phrases — a direct match to the anchor 5 example pattern.

Trigger Term Quality

The when-clause uses natural phrases users would say ("investigating non-conformances, performing root cause analysis, managing CAPAs, interpreting SPC data, or handling supplier quality issues"), but misses common variations such as "NCR", "defects", "8D", and "corrective action" in the trigger list, so it falls short of the comprehensive-synonym anchor 5 and clearly above anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The regulated-manufacturing quality niche (FDA, IATF 16949, AS9100; CAPA, SPC, NCR, supplier quality) is distinct with domain-specific triggers that would rarely collide with other skills, matching the clear-niche anchor 5 rather than the minor-overlap anchor 4.