Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: a config table for env values, a dispatch table with the three steps, three copy-paste gh commands, and terse behavioral boundary notes ("disables code signing", "do not navigate the app or assert that its UI is ready"). No background concepts are explained, and every sentence carries operational information; it is not 4 because there is no padded or over-explanatory passage to trim.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: exact env keys to edit (XCODE_SCHEME, XCODE_DESTINATION), a dispatch table, and ready-to-run `gh workflow run mac-run.yml -f step=...` commands for all three operations. It is not 5 because key operational details are missing — no command to watch or inspect a run, and no command to download the `mac-run` artifact that the Artifact section promises.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (install → configure env → commit to default branch → dispatch → artifact) is present and readable via section order, but there are no validation checkpoints: nothing to confirm the scheme/destination are valid before dispatching, and no verify step after dispatch (e.g. checking run status or confirming the artifact landed). This matches the 3 anchor 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; the destructive/batch cap does not apply since this is a CI dispatch, but the multi-step process still lacks verification, so the simple-skill 5 exception does not fit.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good and the split between usage (SKILL.md) and workflow definition (template file) is the right architecture, but scoring against the actual bundle shows the body's link to `templates/mac-run.yml` points at a file that does not exist in the bundle (only scripts/install.sh is present, and it too targets ../templates/mac-run.yml). A clearly signaled reference to the single most important bundle file that is missing is more than the 'minor organization gaps' of the 4 anchor, so this lands at 3.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "install or dispatch", "build, test or simulator screenshot run" — anchored to a concrete domain ("macOS GitHub Actions", "Xcode project"). It falls short of the 5 anchor because coverage has minor gaps: it omits that the run returns logs and PNGs in an artifact and that installation adds a workflow file to the repository.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (install/dispatch a macOS GitHub Actions build, test, or simulator screenshot run), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the 'when' is only weakly implied by the domain phrasing. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3; it is not 2 because the 'what' half is specific and concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are present: "macOS", "GitHub Actions", "Xcode", "build", "test", "simulator screenshot". A few natural variants are missing ("CI", "Swift", "iOS app", "unit tests", "workflow"), keeping it at the 4 anchor rather than the comprehensive-synonym coverage of 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The intersection of "macOS GitHub Actions" + "Xcode" + "simulator screenshot" is a clear, narrow niche with distinct trigger vocabulary; it is unlikely to fire for the wrong skill. This clearly matches the 5 anchor rather than 4, which would require some overlap risk with closely related skills.