Conciseness

The body is dense and operational with no filler about concepts Claude already knows, but it restates the same few warnings in up to four places: 'verify done claims' appears in Core principle ("'ticket X is done' is a claim to verify"), Phase F, Common Mistakes ("Advancing a wave on an unverified 'it's done'"), the Red flags table ("They said 4415 is done…"), and Important ("A 'done' claim is a claim"); per-dimension trust and links-vs-text are similarly quadruplicated. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' — it is not a 2 because no section is padding, only redundant reinforcement.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste bash with a fallback `find` for locating `schedule.py`, an exact scheduler-input JSON shape with a worked example, an explicit exit-code contract (0/10/1 with per-code actions), the `mcp__ccd_session__spawn_task` call with title/tldr/prompt formats, and a fill-in per-ticket brief template. Specific commands and examples cover the common cases, matching the level-5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

Phases A–F are clearly sequenced with a mermaid flowchart and explicit validation checkpoints: re-verify Jira status AND MR state before declaring anything unblocked, handle scheduler exit code 10 by stopping and asking the user to break a cycle, fix malformed JSON and re-run (exit 1), and refuse to spawn blocked/ineligible tickets. Feedback loops and error recovery are present throughout, matching the level-5 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: the deterministic logic is correctly offloaded to `lib/schedule.py` with a clear path-finding fallback, sections are well-headed, and the per-ticket brief template is a compact hand-off artifact. It falls short of level 5 because the body is ~190 monolithic lines with no one-level-deep reference files for material that would fit them (eligibility rules, per-dimension trust table, brief format), and the referenced bundle files (lib/schedule.py, requirements.json) are not present in the bundle to verify. It exceeds level 3 because what is inline is clearly organized and the external dependency is well signaled.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, comprehensive actions ("ingest the epic and its child tickets", "build the dependency graph from both formal links and free-text", "compute a parallel wave schedule", "spawns a session per workable ticket and re-verifies what unblocked"), which matches the level-5 anchor; however, it is written in second person ("Use when you have a multi-ticket epic… and want to work as many as possible in parallel"), which the judging guidelines penalize by one point, reducing it to 4. It is not a 3 because the action coverage is far fuller than the '1-2 concrete actions' anchor.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: what ("ingest the epic…, build the dependency graph…, compute a parallel wave schedule, then act as a persistent coordinator…") and when ("Use when you have a multi-ticket epic… or need to know what is unblocked now"). This matches the level-5 anchor exactly; level 4 ('when could be more explicit') understates the two explicit trigger clauses.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "multi-ticket epic", "child tickets", "parallel", "breaking dependencies", "unblocked", "wave schedule" — phrases a user coordinating an epic would actually say. It falls short of the level-5 anchor because common synonyms and tool names (Jira, GitLab, sprint, backlog) are absent, but it clearly exceeds the 'some relevant keywords, missing variations' level-3 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — coordinating many related tickets across repos in parallel waves — with distinct triggers (epic, child tickets, dependency graph, workable/unblocked) that are unlikely to fire a neighboring skill. The 'multi-ticket epic' framing separates it from single-ticket skills; conflict risk is minimal, matching the level-5 anchor.