Conciseness

The body is largely efficient — compact functions, a dense anti-patterns table, no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but the full report template in Step 7 (~45 lines) substantially duplicates the worked example's filled-in report, and the "Differentiation axis" and "Report hygiene" paragraphs restate what the examples already show. This fits anchor 4 (minor instances that could be trimmed) rather than anchor 3, since there is no padded or unnecessary conceptual explanation.

Actionability

The `dedupe`, `priority`, and `validate_waiver` functions are complete, executable Python, and the CI commands are real (the EPSS feed curl was verified to serve the expected gzip CSV). However, the CI snippet runs `python ci/triage.py --fail-on critical` while no such script exists anywhere in the bundle, so the pipeline is not runnable end-to-end as written — a concrete minor gap that places this at anchor 4 rather than the fully copy-paste-ready anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints: Step 1 halts on `NO_SCANNER_OUTPUT` and on a configured scanner with no artifact, Step 5 reports every rejected waiver instead of silently no-op'ing, Step 6 gates the post-waiver list, and the exit-code semantics plus the "re-run the scanners and this triage" loop close the feedback cycle. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of explicit validation with error-recovery feedback.

Progressive Disclosure

The body keeps only the core logic inline and splits detail tables and schemas into three real, well-signaled reference files (finding-normalization.md, cve-enrichment.md, waiver-schema.md), each linked at the exact step where it is needed with a descriptive lead-in (e.g., "The per-domain `key_fn` table ... : references/finding-normalization.md"). References are one level deep and all referenced paths exist, matching anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists five concrete actions covering the full pipeline — "Normalizes and dedupes findings, records which scanners agree, rejects waivers without expiry or approver, adds EPSS and KEV, and writes one PR comment" — which matches the comprehensive-coverage anchor; no step of the described pipeline is missing, so it is not the 4 anchor.

Completeness

It explicitly answers "when" with "Use when several security scanners ... produce separate reports and the team needs one BLOCK or PASS" and "what" with the five-action list, both with concrete trigger phrases — the anchor-5 pattern; anchor 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

"security scanners (SAST, DAST, secrets, SCA, container, IaC)", "BLOCK or PASS", and "PR comment" are natural terms users would say, but common variations such as "vulnerability reports" or "code scanning" are absent. This is good coverage with a few natural terms missing (anchor 4), short of the synonym-level completeness of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger requires multiple scanners producing separate reports needing one verdict, a niche clearly distinct from single-scanner tooling or general security review; conflict risk with other skills is minimal, matching anchor 5 rather than the minor-overlap anchor 4.