Conciseness

The ~28-line body is lean with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every section (Purpose, When to Use, Core Workflow, Example) earns its place. Anti-drift check: not a 4, since there is no over-explanation to trim; the brief Purpose line and the e.g.-clauses ('mixing chemicals, assembling components') each carry information.

Actionability

Fully concrete and executable for this environment: the exact command syntax "`read OBJ`" is given, and the worked example shows real commands ("`pick up recipe`", "`read recipe in inventory`") with expected output ('To make salt water, mix sodium chloride and water in a glass jar.') and the extracted goal/components/procedure. Specific examples cover the common case, matching the top anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The three-step sequence (read the document → extract goal/components/procedure → plan next actions) is clear and unambiguous, and the example walks the full flow end-to-end. This is a simple, non-destructive, non-batch skill so the simple-skill exception applies; it is not a 4 because the single workflow has no meaningful validation gap for a read-only extraction task.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is well organized into short sections, but the bundle contains references/action_primer.md — a file of common companion actions explicitly written 'to be used in conjunction with the scienceworld-instruction-reader skill' — and the body never mentions or links it, even though step 3 ('determine which skills and actions to invoke next') is exactly where those actions live. This matches the anchor 'references present but not clearly signaled'. Not a 2 because the inline content is appropriate in size and well-sectioned with no nesting; not a 4 because a provided reference is completely unsignaled from the body.

Specificity

The what-clause names the domain and 1-2 concrete actions — "Reads a recipe or note from the inventory using the 'read' action" and "extracts key information" — but "extracts key information" is generic and the enumeration of instruction/ingredient/steps appears only in the trigger clause, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor. It is not a 4 because the capability list itself does not enumerate several distinct specific actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — "Reads a recipe or note from the inventory using the 'read' action and extracts key information"; when — "Use this skill when you have acquired a recipe, note, or readable document in your inventory and need to extract explicit instructions, ingredient lists, or procedural steps before executing a task". The when-clause is explicit with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "recipe", "note", "readable document", "instructions", "ingredient lists", "procedural steps", "inventory" — phrases a user would naturally say. Not a 5 because common synonyms in this domain (e.g., "letter", "book", "manual", "read the instructions") are missing; not a 3 because multiple natural terms and variations are present rather than a single domain keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The inventory/recipe/'read' action niche is mostly distinct from other document skills, with "recipe, note, or readable document in your inventory" tying triggers to a specific context. Not a 5 because terms like "instructions" and "extract explicit instructions" carry minor overlap risk with generic document-reading skills; not a 3 because the inventory-and-readable-document framing is considerably more specific than "Works with document files".