Conciseness

The body is information-dense contract prose with no padding of basics Claude already knows, but several sections are verbose and could be tightened — the inline HARNESS_PLUGIN_ROOT bash probe, multiple example REVIEW_AUTOSTART/REVIEW_TARGET output strings, and repeated contract restatements — fitting the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' anchor rather than 4.

Actionability

It gives concrete executable commands (e.g., 'bash scripts/harness-review-closeout.sh --dry-run --uncommitted', 'bash scripts/pre-review-cursor.sh'), per-mode reference mappings in tables, and a copy-paste output JSON schema, with only minor gaps (some referenced scripts are external and not bundled), matching the 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps' anchor.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 'Minimal Flow' sequence, an explicit APPROVE acceptance checklist, Review Target Detection with confirmation handshakes, and a REQUEST_CHANGES re-review feedback loop are present; it is not 5 because some validation detail is delegated to references rather than stated inline as explicit checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

It is explicitly a thin dispatcher whose body is an overview pointing to one-level-deep references; the mode→reference table signals navigation clearly and all 12 referenced files (code-review, governance, codex-closeout, dual-review, team-debate, security-profile, ui-rubric, plan-review, scope-review, cursor-review, blind-judge, vision-high-res-flow) exist in references/, matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.

Specificity

Lists several concrete review actions — 'code, plan, scope review' and 'Security/quality check' — with only minor coverage gaps (e.g., no mention of regression/TDD checks that the body performs), matching the 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor rather than the comprehensive score 5.

Completeness

It clearly states what ('Multi-angle code, plan, scope review. Security/quality check') and when ('Trigger: review, code review, plan review, scope analysis'), and adds explicit negative guidance ('Do NOT load for: implementation, new features, bugfix, setup, release'), matching the 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases' anchor; not below because both halves are explicit with concrete triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit 'Trigger: review, code review, plan review, scope analysis' covers the natural phrases users would say, but a few common synonyms (e.g., 'PR review', 'audit') are missing, fitting the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear review niche with distinct triggers plus an explicit 'Do NOT load for' exclusion list minimizes conflict with adjacent implementation/release skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' anchor.