Conciseness

The body is ~50 lines of dense policy with zero padding: "A record exists to stop a reversal: a reviewer or a future agent, reading the code alone, would undo the choice because the code cannot show its reason" carries a full warrant rule in one sentence, and CLI detail is deferred to "decisions --help". Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, and every token earns its place.

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: the CLI invocation ".agents/skills/decider/scripts/decisions <command> [options]", exact file pointers ("workflows/create-decision.md", "schemas/decision-format.md", "templates/decision-entry.md"), a warning against a nonexistent command ("There is no bare `issue` action; use `search --issue`"), and a literal approval sentence to say. It falls short of 5 because no example command run or output shape is shown inline — usage is delegated entirely to --help and the referenced files.

Workflow Clarity

The Workflows table gives clean trigger-to-file dispatch, the reading protocol is ordered ("Read a hit's INDEX row first", "Read an active or superseded record's document before treating it as binding"), and the approval gate is explicit ("Never create a decision document without explicit user approval"). But the `check` action is listed among the CLI's actions yet never sequenced into any flow, and supersession/removal — operations that edit the INDEX and existing records — have no inline validation loop; per the guideline capping workflows with such operations at 3, this cannot score 4.

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a proper overview with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references (the Workflows table, the "Format:" line, `decisions --help`), and the CLI script does exist in the bundle (scripts/decisions). However, the referenced `workflows/create-decision.md`, `workflows/update-decision.md`, `schemas/decision-format.md`, `templates/decision-entry.md`, and `templates/index-row.md` are not present in the actual bundle, so navigation to the core procedural detail cannot be completed or verified — more than the minor organization gap of a 4.

Specificity

"create, search, or supersede" lists three concrete actions on a named artifact ("an architecture decision record"), matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It is not 5 because the skill's own body shows broader coverage (INDEX maintenance, list/get/check actions, retirement/removal) that the description omits; not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("create, search, or supersede an architecture decision record") but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; the "when" is only weakly implied by "Load to". Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

"architecture decision record" is exactly the natural phrase a user would say, reinforced by the action verbs "create", "search", "supersede". A few natural terms are missing — the common abbreviation "ADR" and synonyms like "decision log" — so it sits at good-but-not-comprehensive keyword coverage rather than 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"architecture decision record" names a clear niche, and the create/search/supersede verb set maps uniquely to ADR management — a user mentioning decisions or ADRs would not plausibly route to a different skill. Conflict risk with general documentation skills is minimal.