Conciseness

Nearly every sentence is a load-bearing rule ("Partial supersessions stay active and cross-linked", "A successful sync is not validation", "Report only evidence actually run") with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It matches anchor 5 — lean, assumes competence, every token earns its place — rather than anchor 4's "minor instances of over-explanation".

Actionability

The body provides mostly executable guidance with concrete commands ("pnpm agent-notes:check-transition --base <verified-spec-ref>", "gh stack view --json", "pnpm change:scope", "git diff --check") and explicit approval gates. However, some steps remain directional without exact mechanics — "Create the bottom Spec branch and proposed bilingual note" and the unnamed "scoped pairing write/check" — so it fits anchor 4 (minor gaps) rather than anchor 5 (copy-paste ready coverage of common cases).

Workflow Clarity

The Spec-first stack is a clear numbered 1–7 sequence with explicit validation checkpoints ("require an explicit `APPROVED` review whose commit id equals the current Spec head"), error-recovery loops ("If it exits 2, follow the `gh-stack` skill's remote-discovery procedure"; rerun only invalidated checks after sync), and a dedicated Validation section with commands. This matches anchor 5; since validation is present, the destructive/batch cap at 3 does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines with clean section organization and a single clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference ("Read [the Agent Note rules](../../notes/README.md) before acting") plus a named pointer to the `gh-stack` skill. Per the rubric's simple-skill exception, a short, well-organized skill with no bundle files scores 5; there is no nested or buried referencing that would lower it.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — "deciding whether a Cherry Studio change needs an Agent Note", "authoring or reviewing a Spec", "recording a durable bug-fix decision", "moving a note between proposed/implemented/rejected", "checking supersession and stacked Spec approval" — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's operations. It matches the anchor 5 example's breadth; there are no minor coverage gaps that would place it at 4.

Completeness

The explicit "Use when..." trigger clause enumerates concrete triggering situations, and the same verb phrases explicitly state what the skill does (decide, author/review, record, move, check). Both what and when are explicit with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5; the when is fully specific, so anchor 4's caveat ("when could be more explicit") does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage of terms a contributor in this repo would naturally say ("Agent Note", "Spec", "bug-fix", "supersession", "Cherry Studio"), but there are no synonyms or variations such as "decision record", "notes", or "specification". This fits anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5 (comprehensive synonyms/extensions) or 3 (only partial coverage).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Cherry Studio" plus repo-specific lifecycle vocabulary ("Agent Note", "Spec", "proposed/implemented/rejected", "stacked Spec approval") carves out a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with other skills. It clearly matches anchor 5 rather than anchor 4's "minor overlap risk with closely related skills".