Conciseness

The body is dense with domain facts Claude would not reliably know (CFR/SRI/ION severity vocab, 5-business-day SLAs, XR-133 write limits, bench matrices) and time-sensitive version facts are properly isolated in a 'Versioning and deprecation' section. Not 5 because of minor trimming opportunities, e.g. 'the industry has converged on over three console generations' and the lengthy per-category notes that duplicate detail also delegated to references/platform-cert-details.md.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout for an instruction-only skill: a symptom→category→owner→severity triage cheatsheet, a checklist workflow with specified inputs (`xbox`/`playstation`/`nintendo`/`steam`/`all`) and an exact column spec (`# | Requirement | Description | Test Category | Pass Signal | N/A?`), plus a refusal rule for unsourced claims. Not 5 because there is no worked example of an emitted checklist section, which would make the primary output format unambiguous.

Workflow Clarity

Both workflows are clearly sequenced: the triage workflow ends with an explicit verification checkpoint ('confirm the category and requirement ID still resolve in the current requirements list before closing'), and the checklist workflow specifies per-platform ordering, N/A handling rules, and a guardrail against inventing text. Not 5 because the checklist workflow lacks a final verify/review step for the emitted output, and not 3 because checkpoints are present rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: per-regime detail is split into four clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference files (all verified to exist), and the body holds the cross-platform common structure. Not 5 because the 268-line body still carries substantial per-category detail (e.g. localization expansion percentages, accessibility regulatory dates) that could live in a reference, and console-nda-regimes.md cites a `PLUGIN_AUTHORING.md` that is not part of this bundle.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete capabilities — "planning a game test pass or certification calendar", "the six game QA test categories, submission workflows, severity terms and SLAs", "mapping QA findings to platform terms", "building a pre-submission checklist" — comprehensively covering the skill's scope. Not score 4 because coverage is not merely 'several actions with minor gaps'; the list spans every major function the body delivers.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: "Use when planning a game test pass or certification calendar across Xbox (XR), PlayStation (TRC), Nintendo (Lotcheck) and Steam" gives concrete 'when' triggers, and the colon clause lists the 'what' (categories, workflows, severity/SLAs, mapping, checklist). Not 4 because neither half is vague or merely implied — both are concrete and explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural keywords users would say: "game test pass", "certification", "submission", "QA", "pre-submission checklist", plus platform names "Xbox (XR), PlayStation (TRC), Nintendo (Lotcheck) and Steam" with their regime acronyms. Not 5 because common variations like "compliance", "release readiness", or "first-party requirements" are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — multi-platform game console certification planning — with distinct triggers (XR/TRC/Lotcheck/Steam regime names) that no generic QA or general testing skill would claim. Minimal overlap risk with related engine-testing skills since the description scopes to platform-holder certification, not unit test authoring.