Conciseness

The "Problem" section ("the log is: Mutable… Unsigned… Operator-bound") and the "Why This Matters" before/after table (~30 lines combined) are motivational padding that duplicate each other and add no actionable guidance, which is more than anchor 4's "minor instances of over-explanation". The bulk (hooks, Cedar policy, verification) is efficient with no re-teaching of known concepts, so it is above anchor 2's "several unnecessary explanations".

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: pinned commands ("npx protect-mcp@0.32.4 init --dir \"$d\"", "npx @veritasacta/verify@0.9.2 --replay-chain ./receipts/receipts.jsonl --key \"$PUB\""), a complete idempotent key-creation script ("if [ ! -e ./protect-mcp.key ]"), a full Cedar policy file, and documented exit codes ("Exit 0 = every receipt verified"). Copy-paste ready and covers the common cases, matching anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The Solution section gives a numbered setup sequence (1–4) with explanatory comments, and Verification documents exit-code outcomes. Not 5 because there is no checkpoint confirming the hooks fire (e.g., make a Read call, then check ./receipts/receipts.jsonl) and no walked-through recovery path for exit 1; not 3 because validation and sequence are both present.

Progressive Disclosure

The single reference is one level deep, clearly signaled ("See references/receipt-format.md for a sample"), and verified to exist, with only a bullet summary kept inline; key rotation is properly deferred to it. Not 5 because the ~205-line body (simple-skill exception does not apply) retains content that could be split out, such as the full commented Cedar policy and the Standards/Related link lists.

Specificity

"Configure Cedar policy enforcement and Ed25519 signed receipts for Claude Code tool calls" names two concrete actions with specific technologies, and the when-clause adds "cryptographic audit trails, policy-gated tool execution, or compliance-ready evidence of agent actions". Not 5 because capabilities from the body such as offline receipt verification are not mentioned, leaving minor coverage gaps (anchor 4).

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Configure Cedar policy enforcement and Ed25519 signed receipts for Claude Code tool calls") and when with three concrete trigger conditions ("Use when setting up projects that need cryptographic audit trails, policy-gated tool execution, or compliance-ready evidence of agent actions"), matching the anchor-5 example structure. The when-clause is explicit and specific, so anchor 4's caveat does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say are present ("audit trails", "compliance", "policy enforcement", "signed receipts"), giving good keyword coverage. Missing common synonyms a user might use (e.g., "tamper-evident", "non-repudiation", "verify receipts"), so it falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Cedar policies plus Ed25519 signed receipts for Claude Code tool calls is a clear niche with distinct, technical trigger terms; overlap risk with other skills is minimal. No neighboring anchor fits better since the description both states a distinct capability set and carries unambiguous triggers.