Conciseness

The body is efficient: it does not explain concepts Claude already knows, and the ScienceWorld-specific details (observation format, ambiguous object names) are genuinely additive. It is not a 5 because the 'Notes & Best Practices' section repeats guidance already given in 'Core Process' and 'Key Actions' (e.g., 'look around' after teleporting, using 'examine' for ambiguity).

Actionability

Concrete commands are given ('teleport to <ROOM_NAME>', 'look around', 'examine <OBJECT>') and the example is worked end-to-end, but key details are missing: step 2 says 'Use the provided prioritize_rooms.py script' yet no such script exists in the bundle, and the promised 'default priority list based on common object locations' is never provided. This incomplete-but-concrete state matches the score-3 anchor rather than the mostly-executable anchor at 4.

Workflow Clarity

The search loop is clearly sequenced with an explicit stop condition and a failure report ('If the object is not found after searching all candidate rooms, report this failure'), and identity-confirmation via 'examine' acts as a checkpoint. However, the 'Plan Search Order' step is unexecutable as written because it depends on a nonexistent script and an unstated default room list, leaving a material gap that the score-4 anchor's 'minor validation gaps' does not cover.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is short and well-sectioned, but judged against the actual bundle: the three files in references/ (action_guide.md, action_primer.md, example_trajectory_breakdown.md) are never referenced from the body, so relevant existing material is undiscoverable, while the one file the body does reference (prioritize_rooms.py) does not exist. This fits 'some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled' rather than the good-structure anchor at 4.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Searches for a specific target object across multiple rooms', 'systematically teleporting to likely locations and examining each room', 'checks for the object, and continues until found, returning the object's location' — comprehensively covering the skill's capabilities in third-person voice, matching the score-5 anchor. It is not a 4 because coverage is complete rather than having minor gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('Searches for a specific target object across multiple rooms... examining each room... returning the object's location') and when ('Use this skill when you need to find an object whose exact location is unknown') with a concrete trigger phrase, matching the score-5 anchor exactly. The 'when' clause is explicit and specific, so it is not a 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'find an object', 'exact location is unknown', 'teleport', and 'look around' are terms a user of this environment would actually say, giving good keyword coverage. It is not a 5 because common synonyms such as 'locate', 'where is', or 'search for' are missing; it is clearly above the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor at 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'teleporting to likely locations' and 'multiple rooms' language carves out a clear niche that is unlikely to trigger general document- or code-handling skills. It is not a 5 because the description never names the ScienceWorld environment, leaving minor overlap risk with other virtual-environment navigation skills; it is well above the broad-overlap anchors at 2-3.