Conciseness

The body is dense and operational (W&B API call, fallback-resolving bash, a complete spawn prompt) with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, fitting the level-4 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor. Not level 5 because the same-family/provisional caveat is repeated three times (header note, Step 1.5, Review Tracing) and 'A single positive result on one dataset does not support a general claim' appears in both the prompt template and Rules — trimming would tighten it.

Actionability

Mostly executable: Step 1.5's bash pre-check is copy-paste ready, the spawn_agent prompt is fully specified, and routing/wiki steps give concrete commands. Falls short of level 5's 'fully executable, copy-paste ready' because Step 3.5 is pure pseudocode and Step 5's block mixes shell tests with non-shell control flow (`if [ "$EXP_NODE_OK" = 1 ]:`, `for each claim resolved by this verdict:`) that cannot run as written.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequence (collect → pre-check → judge → parse → integrity check → route → wiki → trace) with explicit validation checkpoints (deterministic evidence pre-check, integrity audit pass/warn/fail handling, low-confidence treated as inconclusive) and feedback loops (re-run after supplementary experiments, multiple-partials escalation, fail-closed reviewer fallback chain with a traced BLOCKED record). Matches the level-5 anchor including error-recovery paths.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill ships no bundle at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and its cited helper docs (`../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md`, `shared-references/experiment-integrity.md`, `../shared-references/review-tracing.md`, `reviewer-routing.md`) resolve outside the skill directory, so a reader cannot verify them from the bundle. Inlined ~50-line wiki-update pseudocode and the ~40-line fail-closed routing rule are content that belongs in separate reference/script files, matching the level-3 anchor 'content that should be separate is inline' better than level 4's 'most content is appropriately placed'.

Specificity

Quotes multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "judge what claims the results support, what they don't, and what evidence is still missing", "A secondary Codex agent evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm)". Matches the level-5 anchor ('lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage') and exceeds level 4 because the actions span the full pipeline (judge, evaluate, route with named outcomes).

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: what ("A secondary Codex agent evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action") and when ("Use when experiments complete" and "Use after experiments finish — before writing the paper or running ablations"). Matches the level-5 anchor exactly; level 4 would require a weaker or less explicit 'when' clause.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: "experiments complete", "results", "claims", "evidence", "paper", "ablations" — phrases a researcher would naturally say. Not level 5 because common synonyms and variations are missing (e.g., 'experiment results', 'interpret my results', 'validate findings', 'what can I claim'); above level 3 because the terms present are the natural phrasing, not jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (post-experiment claim adjudication in a research pipeline) with distinct triggers ('after experiments finish', 'before writing the paper'). Minimal conflict risk; the mention of 'ablations' only names an adjacent routing target, not an overlapping capability, so it does not fall to level 4's 'minor overlap risk'.