Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what Spec Kit, Kiro, n8n, or Temporal are, and lines like 'Retire only after the replacement has run twice in parallel' and 'states → steps, and transition history → the workflow you actually have' carry pure instruction. The few rhetorical flourishes ('Rewriting them to fit the frame is how adoption dies in week two') justify the rules they accompany rather than pad.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: specific per-tool mappings ('constitution.md → context pack; /specify,/plan → steps with their artefacts as exit evidence; tasks.md → the inner graph of build'), a named output file ('reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-ingest-delta.md'), and a concrete command ('run flow_lint.py'). Minor gaps keep it from 5: flow_lint.py is invoked with no path and is not bundled, and 'rung 3/4/5' terminology is undefined within this skill.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with an explicit Quality Gates checklist ('flow_lint.py clean on the produced definition', 'Existing automation still runs unchanged at the end of the ingest') and validation embedded in step 6. Not 5 because there is no explicit fix-and-re-run loop if lint fails — error recovery is implied rather than stated. The skill is explicitly non-destructive ('Wrap, do not rewrite'), so the batch/destructive cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: the body is a concise overview and delegates per-tool mappings to 'ingest-recipes.md', the schema to 'workflow-definition.md', and next steps to sibling skills, each with a one-line purpose label — the right split, one level deep. Not 5 because the referenced paths ('skills/flow-driven/references/...', 'flow_lint.py') do not resolve within this bundle — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist alongside SKILL.md.

Specificity

Names the domain and several specific actions — 'map it into a definition of workflow without rewriting what works' and 'Produces the mapped workflow plus a delta report' — plus concrete source systems ('GitHub Spec Kit, Kiro, a bespoke prompt/script/cron harness, Claude Code or Codex skill libraries, a Jira/Linear tracker, or an n8n/Temporal automation'). Not 5 because the core is one mapping action with two outputs rather than comprehensive coverage of distinct actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what — 'Adopt a workflow that already exists... and map it into a definition of workflow... Produces the mapped workflow plus a delta report'; when — 'Use when an organisation already has agentic or process machinery and wants it made flow-driven, when documented and actual process have drifted apart, or when deciding whether to wrap, extend, or retire an existing harness'. Concrete trigger conditions match the anchor 5 example's structure.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: users needing this would say 'Spec Kit', 'Kiro', 'Jira', 'Linear', 'n8n', 'Temporal', 'Claude Code', or that 'documented and actual process have drifted apart'. Not 5 because common natural phrasings like 'migrate our existing workflow' or 'audit our process' are absent and the coverage is tool-name-driven rather than synonym-broad.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Mostly distinct: the ingest niche (existing machinery, documented-vs-actual drift, wrap/extend/retire decisions) has triggers that siblings in 'the flow-driven family' (scaffold, define) would not fire on. Not 5 because the closing 'Part of the flow-driven family' creates minor overlap risk with those closely related skills.