Conciseness

The ~52-line body is lean throughout: a terse 6-item pipeline list, short bullets, three commands, and a one-sentence concept section ("Measures whether a skill/rule is followed even when the prompt doesn't explicitly support it"). It assumes Claude's competence (e.g., references "claude -p" and "stream-json" without explanation) and contains no padded explanations, matching anchor 5; at most one editorial sentence in "Advanced (optional)" could be trimmed, which does not drag it to anchor 4.

Actionability

The Usage section provides three copy-paste-ready commands (full run, "--dry-run (no cost, spec + scenarios only)", and "--gen-model haiku --model sonnet"), and the referenced flags and `scripts.run` module were verified to exist in the bundle. It stops short of anchor 5 because minor details are missing: where reports are written, how to locate/open them, and no reference for the full option set.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 1-6 pipeline (spec generation → scenario generation → running → classification → temporal ordering → reports) gives a clear sequence, but validation checkpoints are only implicit — the dry-run option exists yet is never framed as a verify-spec-first step, and there is no feedback loop (check generated spec → adjust → re-run). Since running agents across multiple scenarios is a batch operation with real cost, the rubric's batch-operation cap holds workflow clarity at 3.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview with clear sections (Supported Targets, When to Activate, Usage, Key Concept, Report Contents, Advanced) and nothing inlined that belongs in a separate file. Its only external content — the 11-file scripts/ bundle — is correctly surfaced through a single, clearly signaled entry point (`uv run python -m scripts.run`, verified present in the bundle), so navigation is trivial and structure matches anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "auto-generates scenarios at 3 prompt strictness levels", "runs agents", "classifies behavioral sequences", "reports compliance rates with full tool call timelines" — but omits core pipeline steps the body documents (spec generation from .md files, temporal ordering checks), leaving minor coverage gaps. It clearly exceeds anchor 3 (only 1-2 actions) but is not the comprehensive coverage of anchor 5.

Completeness

The "what" is clearly and specifically stated, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; the opening "Visualize whether skills, rules, and agent definitions are actually followed" only weakly implies the "when". Per the rubric guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3 — it is not a 4 because the "when" is implied rather than stated.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "skills", "rules", "agent definitions", "actually followed", and "compliance rates" are phrases a user would plausibly say (e.g., "is this rule actually being followed?"). It falls short of anchor 5 because synonyms ("adherence", "obeys", "respects") and file extensions ("SKILL.md", ".md") are absent, though it is well above anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — measuring whether agent behavior complies with skills/rules/agent definitions — is clear and rarely overlapping, so it is well above anchor 3. However, the leading verb "Visualize" mischaracterizes the skill (the body says "Measures") and creates minor overlap risk with chart/dataviz skills, keeping it below anchor 5's "minimal conflict risk".