Conciseness

The ~50-line body is lean with no concept explanations and assumes competence ('Mark capabilities as infeasible if they won't work in this sandbox'). It falls short of anchor 5 because the 'Eval Constraints' section duplicates sandbox/timeout constraints already detailed in the mandated reference (which the Quick Start requires reading before starting), and minor typos ('Its possible', 'if its not specified') add friction — instances that could be trimmed.

Actionability

Concrete output file tree with per-file requirements ('criteria.json # Scoring rubric (must sum to 100)', 'capability.txt # Single line'), copy-paste-ready commands (tessl eval run/view-status/list), and a mandated reference containing executable JSON templates and worked examples. Anchor 4's 'minor gaps' do not apply — the bundle fully specifies what to do at each step.

Workflow Clarity

The body sequences prerequisites (tile packaging/splitting) → generation via the reference → running evals, and the mandated reference includes an explicit validation task with checklists (criteria sum to 100, leakage checks, sequential folder numbering) matching anchor 5's feedback loops. Scored 4 because the body's own overview never surfaces a validation checkpoint before 'tessl eval run', and there is a naming inconsistency (body says 'scenario-N' while the reference specifies 0-indexed 'scenario-0').

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with a single clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference (references/scenario-generation.md, verified to exist, linked in Quick Start), with detailed workflow appropriately split out. This is a direct match for anchor 5's 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions ('Creates inventory of instructions from the skill, test cases with success criteria, and validates skill coverage') going beyond naming the domain. It stops short of anchor 5 because it omits the skill's running/monitoring capability ('tessl eval run/view-status') covered in the body — a minor coverage gap, not the comprehensive coverage of anchor 5.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Generate evaluation scenarios... Creates inventory of instructions... test cases with success criteria... validates skill coverage') and when ('Use when asked to...') with concrete trigger phrases. This is a direct match for anchor 5; anchor 4's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply given the quoted trigger list.

Trigger Term Quality

Five natural, directly quoted trigger phrases users would actually say: 'generate evals', 'create evaluation scenarios', 'test this skill', 'measure skill value', 'prepare for tessl publish'. These cover the main phrasings and synonyms comprehensively (file extensions are not applicable to this task type), matching anchor 5 rather than the 'a few natural terms missing' of anchor 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (evaluation scenario generation for Tessl tiles) with distinct triggers including the platform-specific 'prepare for tessl publish'. Minimal conflict risk with other skills; anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' is not evidenced.