Conciseness

The body is lean — short Purpose, bulleted When to Use, and a four-step execution list with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not a 5 because the trailing '## Example from Trajectory' header is empty dead weight: a token spend that earns nothing, matching anchor 4's 'minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Concrete executable commands are given ('go to {recep}', 'open {recep}') plus a concrete failure signal ('"Nothing happened" indicates the action was invalid'). Not a 5 because the '## Example from Trajectory' section is empty, so there is no worked example showing an actual input, command, and resulting observation — a visible gap in copy-paste-ready coverage; clearly above anchor 3 since the guidance given is executable, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The four steps are clearly sequenced with a precondition check (verify the receptacle is 'closed') and expected success/failure outcomes that support error interpretation ('Nothing happened' → already open or wrong identifier). Not a 5 because there is no explicit feedback loop instructing what to do on failure (e.g., re-check the identifier and retry); above anchor 4's baseline is not justified without that recovery step, and it does not reach anchor 3 since checkpoints are present rather than missing.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized for a sub-50-line skill, but the bundle contains references/common_receptacles.md — which documents exactly the naming conventions the Input Format section relies on — and the body never mentions or links it, so the reference is invisible to a reader. This matches anchor 3 ('references present but not clearly signaled'): structure exists, but an available reference file is completely unsignaled. Not anchor 4, which requires references to be 'mostly clear'.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete specifics — 'takes a receptacle identifier as input, performs the open action, and outputs the observation of the interior' — with a clear I/O contract. It is not a 5 because the skill really performs only one action (open), so coverage of capabilities is narrow rather than comprehensive; it is above a 3 because the input/action/output detail goes beyond naming 1-2 generic actions.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'This skill opens a closed receptacle to access its contents' answers what, and 'It should be triggered when an agent needs to interact with items inside a closed container (e.g., fridge, microwave, drawer)' answers when with concrete trigger phrasing. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of an explicit what plus an explicit when with concrete trigger conditions.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger vocabulary is present: 'closed receptacle', 'items inside a closed container', and concrete examples 'fridge, microwave, drawer' that an agent would actually see in observations. Not a 5 because common receptacle synonyms (cabinet, safe, drawerbath) and phrasing like 'the fridge is closed' are missing; clearly above a 3 since several natural terms beyond generic domain language are included.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill has a niche (opening receptacles) but its trigger condition — 'needs to interact with items inside a closed container' — would also fire for item-retrieval and item-placement skills that involve the same containers, creating real overlap risk. It is more specific than anchor 2's 'very broad' but does not reach anchor 4's 'mostly distinct' because the trigger overlaps with closely related take/put skills.