Conciseness

No padding that explains known concepts, but the body carries ~100 lines of inline shell (the Step 1.5 pre-check script and the Step 5 wiki procedure) and duplicates the same ~10-line ARIS_REPO resolver chain in both steps verbatim. Rationale-heavy asides ("the exact bug this closes", "a loop can drive, never acquit") add length without adding operational content. Not 4 because the duplicated resolver block and inlined scripts are more than minor trims.

Actionability

Mostly executable: a complete copy-paste bash block for the evidence pre-check, a full Codex MCP invocation with model/config/prompt template, exact research_wiki.py add_experiment/add_edge command lines with flags, and the verdict fields to parse. Not 5 because Step 3.5 and Step 5 mix prose-condition pseudocode ("if research-wiki/ exists:", "for each claim resolved by this verdict") with real code, leaving those sections as guided templates rather than runnable commands.

Workflow Clarity

Clear numbered sequence (1 → 1.5 → 2 → 3 → 3.5 → 4 → 5) with explicit validation checkpoints at every risky point: deterministic evidence pre-check before the Codex call, JSON-validity check on pre-check output, integrity-audit handling with confidence downgrade, EXP_NODE_OK gating of wiki edges, and a fail-closed reviewer fallback chain. Per-verdict routing (yes/partial/no) with a re-run loop for partial completes the feedback structure.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure and signaled links are decent — eight shared-references are cited as one-level-deep markdown links — but no bundle directory (references/, scripts/, assets/) exists, and the ../shared-references/ files the body depends on are not present alongside the skill, so every reference dangles from this bundle's perspective. Additionally the long inline bash helpers would more naturally live in scripts/ or a reference file. Not 2 because the body itself is well-sectioned and references are clearly signaled, not buried.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "judge what claims the results support, what they don't, and what evidence is still missing", "evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm)". Not 5 because it omits parts of the skill's coverage (collecting results from W&B/logs, integrity audit, wiki updates); not 3 because far more than 1–2 actions are named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — judging claim support/evidence gaps and routing to pivot/supplement/confirm — and when, twice and concretely ("Use when experiments complete" and "Use after experiments finish — before writing the paper or running ablations"). Matches the anchor for a clear what AND when with concrete trigger phrases; not 4 since the when-clauses are already fully explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "experiments complete", "experiments finish", "claims", "results", "evidence", "before writing the paper", "running ablations" — phrases a researcher would actually say. Not 5 because common variations/synonyms like "W&B", "interpret results", or "verify claims" are missing; well above 3's 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — post-experiment claim adjudication with a named reviewer (Codex MCP) — that is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Minor overlap risk with sibling research-pipeline skills sharing the "results/claims/experiments" vocabulary (ablation-planner, proof-checker), which keeps it below 5.