Conciseness

The body is lean and telegraphic ("Three modes, one value bar", "Prefer net-negative production LOC") with zero re-teaching of concepts Claude already knows and no padded sections — every line adds project-specific rules, matching anchor 5 exactly. It is not a 4 because no section could be trimmed without losing a real constraint.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands appear throughout (the vitest JSON-reporter baseline command, `pnpm --filter eve exec vitest run --config vitest.<tier>.config.ts <path>`, `pnpm guard:invariants`, `pnpm fmt/lint/typecheck`), plus concrete checklists (four gate questions, required evidence fields, per-pattern junk list). This matches anchor 5; anchor 4 would require minor gaps in the commands or checklists, and none are evident.

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: read-only discovery first, 'a missing field means the candidate is not ready for deletion', a numbered validation list with exact commands, and the rule that a failing retained test is treated as a product bug and reproduced rather than deleted. This is a destructive/batch skill whose validation is thorough, so the cap at 3 does not apply; it matches anchor 5's checklists and error-recovery loop.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: a ~200-line overview that defers campaign detail to a clearly signaled one-level reference ("before starting one, read [CAMPAIGN.md](CAMPAIGN.md)") and points to AGENTS.md and the gh-pr-description skill. It is not 5 because the skill ships no bundle files and the referenced CAMPAIGN.md does not exist alongside SKILL.md, so that reference is dangling as delivered — a minor navigation gap rather than anchor 3's unclear or buried references.

Specificity

The description names several concrete actions — "Authoring gate for new tests plus audit workflow for low-value, slow, implementation-coupled, or duplicative tests and the test-only production seams" — going well beyond the 1-2 actions of anchor 3, but it omits the third mode (campaign pruning) and relies on compressed noun phrases rather than enumerated capabilities, so it falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive coverage.

Completeness

Both are explicit: "Invoke whenever writing, changing, reviewing, or sweeping tests in the eve repository" answers when with concrete trigger phrases, and the authoring-gate/audit-workflow clause answers what. It is not a 5 because the 'what' is a dense noun stack that leaves campaign mode unstated, so the what/when pairing is clear but not maximally explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ("writing, changing, reviewing, or sweeping tests", "low-value", "slow", "duplicative tests"), giving good keyword coverage; common variations like "delete/prune/clean up tests", "flaky tests", or "test coverage" are missing, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's synonym-complete coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoping to "the eve repository" and distinctive vocabulary ("test-only production seams", tiered test audit) give it a clear niche with minor overlap risk; it stops short of anchor 5 because it claims every act of writing or changing tests, which could overlap with adjacent test-related skills in the same repo.