Conciseness

The ~30-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: a tight input/output contract ('primary_target', 'reference_object', 'spatial_relation', 'action'), compact IF/THEN relation logic, and a one-line critical check. No padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 4 because there are essentially no tokens to trim.

Actionability

The output dictionary fields and IF/THEN sub-goal logic are concrete, but the invoked 'parsing script (parse_goal.py)' does not exist anywhere in the bundle, and section 3 is vague ('must be translated into the agent's available action set (go to, take, use, etc.)') with no concrete example of parsed output. Not 2 because real structured guidance exists; not 4 because a key executable artifact is missing and the action mapping is incomplete.

Workflow Clarity

The four sections form a clear sequence (parse → generate sub-objectives → map objects/actions → execute & adapt) with an explicit checkpoint ('After each action, monitor the observation') and a failure-feedback loop ('If the expected object is not found, or the action fails ("Nothing happened"), consult the fallback logic'). Not 5 because the parse output is never validated and the fallback loop is deferred rather than explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: references/search_patterns.md exists and holds genuinely separate material, but it is buried mid-sentence in section 4 with no clear signal or correct path, and parse_goal.py is referenced yet absent from the bundle entirely. Not 4 because a referenced path is broken and the existing reference is not clearly signaled; not 2 because the body does have section structure and only one level of referencing.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'Parses the natural language task goal to extract actionable sub-objectives and required objects' and 'interprets phrases like "look at X under Y" to identify target objects (pillow), reference objects (desklamp), and spatial relationships (under)' — but coverage has minor gaps (no mention of planning execution, fallback search, or action mapping). Not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions; not 5 because the capability list is not comprehensive.

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' ('Parses the natural language task goal to extract actionable sub-objectives and required objects') and explicitly answers 'when' with a concrete trigger clause ('Trigger this skill whenever a new task is assigned to break down complex instructions') plus a concrete example phrase. Not 4 because the 'when' is explicit and specific rather than needing more detail.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('task goal', 'new task is assigned', 'break down complex instructions') but natural variations and synonyms ('objective', 'command', 'instruction parsing') are missing, and terms like 'sub-objectives' lean technical. Not 4 because keyword coverage is partial rather than good with only a few gaps.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The goal-interpretation function with its concrete phrase example ('look at X under Y') carves a clear niche, but the trigger 'whenever a new task is assigned' is broad and could overlap with other task-handling or planning skills. Not 5 due to that overlap risk; not 3 because the function itself is well differentiated.