Conciseness

The map is dense and consistently skill-focused, but the /grill-me vs /grill-with-docs distinction ("stateless", "leaves a paper trail", "strictly the better one") is explained in full twice — once in step 1 of the main flow and again under Standalone — and /wayfinder stacks redundant qualifiers ("it's slower and denser, so save it for exactly that, never a well-scoped feature"). Mostly efficient but with real duplication that could be tightened; not level 4 because the repetition is more than minor.

Actionability

For an instruction-only router this is concrete: exact slash commands per situation, explicit branch questions ("can you settle every question in conversation?", "is this a multi-session build?"), file locations (".scratch/<feature>/issues/"), and a guardrail ("Before stating what a skill does or recommending a step be skipped, read that skill's SKILL.md"). It falls short of 5 because the skill's own behavior when invoked — how the routing conversation with the user proceeds — is never stated.

Workflow Clarity

The main flow is a numbered 1–4 sequence with explicit yes/no branches and context checkpoints ("Keep steps 1–3 in one unbroken context window", compact at the nearest phase boundary near the smart zone). Validation loops are not applicable since this is routing, not a destructive or batch operation. It misses 5 because the phase-boundary decision is admitted as "the fuzziest decision in this whole map" and delegated to an external file rather than resolved inline.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized (main flow, on-ramps, vocabulary, phase boundaries, standalone) and the single external reference is clearly signaled ("Read [PHASE-BOUNDARIES.md](PHASE-BOUNDARIES.md) for the ordered tree..."), but the bundle contains no such file — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist — so the one reference is dangling and navigation dead-ends. Good structure, but the broken/absent referenced file keeps this below 4.

Specificity

"A router over the skills in this repo" names the domain and "Ask which skill or flow fits your situation" gives one concrete action, but the description never enumerates the routing situations it covers (ideas, bugs, upkeep, etc.), so coverage is not comprehensive. It is above level 2 because the action stated is concrete rather than generic, and below level 4 because no list of several specific actions appears.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (a router over this repo's skills), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; the "when" is only weakly implied by "fits your situation". Per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

The description contains relevant keywords ("skill", "flow", "fits your situation", "router") but misses the natural phrasings a user would actually say, such as "which skill should I use", "where do I start", or "workflow". Level 4 requires good keyword coverage with only a few natural terms missing, which this thin set does not meet.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"A router over the skills in this repo" claims a clear meta-niche distinct from the skills it routes to, with a trigger (choosing between skills) that no individual skill would match. It falls short of level 5 because "Ask which skill or flow fits your situation" is generic enough to overlap with other meta/routing skills.