Conciseness

The body is dense prescriptive guidance with no concept explanations — lines like "A finished run exits 0 even when scenarios fail; `ok: true` can also describe a refused run" deliver non-obvious operational rules, and version drift is handled generically ("Use this workflow across compatible releases") without dated pins. Nothing is padded or over-explained, so it matches the lean anchor rather than the 4 anchor's 'minor instances that could be trimmed'.

Actionability

Commands are concrete and copy-paste ready throughout: `rook doctor`, `rook status --json`, `rook plan --json`, a need-to-command table with exact flags (`rook sync --yes` before `rook run --json`, `rook profile test --goal "<reply-only goal>"`, `LT_USERNAME`/`LT_ACCESS_KEY` for CI). Placeholders like `<id>` are inherent, not gaps, so it fits the fully-executable anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The lifecycle is sequenced via the state-driven table (sign in → project → explore → agent → generate → profile → run → report) with explicit validation checkpoints ("Check the exit status and `discarded`/`halted` fields before claiming completion"; inspect `agent.yaml` for `calls[]` entries with `write: true` before reaching commands) and error-recovery loops ("If a command or output differs, consult its help and release notes before adapting that step"). Validation for the destructive/paid operations is present, so the workflow-clarity cap of 3 does not apply and it matches the explicit-checkpoints anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The ~100-line overview splits content appropriately: all seven referenced files (profiles.md, scenarios.md, troubleshooting.md, headless-contract.md, verdicts.md, ci.md, mcp.md) exist in references/, are linked inline where contextually needed or in an annotated References section, and contain no nested references (one level deep). This matches the clear-overview anchor; not 4 because navigation and placement have no organization gaps.

Specificity

It lists multiple concrete actions — "test, evaluate, red-team or regression-check an AI agent" plus "interpret saved Rook results" — giving comprehensive coverage of the tool's capabilities. Not 4, because there are no minor gaps in the action coverage.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit (the five actions) and the 'when' is explicitly stated — "Does not apply to ordinary unit tests, browser automation or web UI checks without an AI agent under test" — so it is not capped at 3 as merely implied. Not 5 because the trigger guidance is only negative; there is no affirmative 'Use when...' phrase with concrete positive triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural phrases users would say ("test", "red-team", "regression-check", "AI agent", "saved Rook results") plus disambiguating terms ("unit tests", "browser automation", "web UI checks"). Not 5 because common variations such as "agent evals" or "benchmark my agent" are absent, leaving a few natural terms missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche ("an AI agent the user owns", "saved Rook results") with the exclusion clause actively preventing mis-triggers for unit-testing, browser-automation and web-UI skills. Conflict risk with other skills is minimal, matching the distinct-triggers anchor.