Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no ML or ablation basics are explained, and rules are stated tersely ("No 'just try it' experiments"). The Step 3 normalization template with generic example rows ("remove module X", lambda values) partially duplicates the format Codex already outputs, which is the minor trimmable instance keeping it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Concrete throughout: exact source files ("idea-stage/docs/research_contract.md", "EXPERIMENT_LOG.md"), a copy-paste-ready MCP invocation with model and reasoning config, a structured output template, and naming conventions ("ablation-no-module-X"). Minor gaps — e.g., "update findings.md with insights" gives no format or location — hold it at anchor 4 rather than fully-executable anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequence with real checkpoints: feasibility review before running, "Smoke test each ablation before full run", and "don't silently drop ablations" with Codex re-prioritization. The smoke-test failure path (fix and retry) is only implicit, so it sits at anchor 4 ('most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than the explicit-feedback-loop anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained file with well-organized sections (When to Use, Workflow, Rules) and no bundle files or nested references. Nothing here belongs in a separate file — the whole content is one cohesive workflow — so navigation is trivial and the structure matches the appropriate-split intent of anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("ablation studies are needed for paper submission") but never states what the skill actually does — no concrete action verb like 'designs' or 'plans' appears. This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is not a 3 because no concrete skill action is listed.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit ("Use when main results pass result-to-claim... and ablation studies are needed"), but the 'what' is absent — the skill's actual capability is never stated, only implied by the trigger condition. Per the guideline to score only what is explicitly stated, this matches anchor 2 ('only when present without what') rather than anchor 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say: "ablation studies", "paper submission", and the concrete gate "result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial)". Good coverage but missing common variations like 'reviewer-requested ablations', 'ML paper', or 'ablation experiments', so it falls short of the comprehensive-synonym anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (ablation study planning) gated on a specific upstream workflow state ("claim_supported=yes or partial" from result-to-claim). Such specific triggers make it highly distinguishable from other skills with minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5.