Conciseness

The body is dense and operational throughout — preflight script, stack-model diagram, command list, and exit-code semantics — with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and essentially no padding; even the exit-code and recovery details are tool-specific knowledge Claude could not infer. It is not a 4 because there is no trimmable over-explanation of substance.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready with sensible parameter placeholders: a complete preflight block, the full common-operations block (`gh stack init --base main <bottom-branch>`, `gh stack view --json`, etc.), and specific recovery commands per exit code (`gh stack rebase --continue`, `--abort`). It is not a 4 because the given commands cover the common cases without gaps; delegation of PR bodies to `gh-create-pr` is an explicit boundary, not a missing detail.

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints: the 4-step PR creation flow ends with "Verify the resulting topology with `gh stack view --json`", the 5-step lower-layer change flow includes verification and re-running "only the checks invalidated by that rewritten scope", and post-sync guidance requires inspecting output and re-running `view --json` rather than trusting exit success. Feedback loops for risky operations (exit codes 2, 3, 9 with distinct recovery procedures) are present, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The single-file body (~100 lines) is well organized into clear sections, and cross-references to companion skills (`gh-create-pr`, `.agents/skills/agent-notes/SKILL.md`) are explicit and one level deep. It is not a 5 because the skill exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold and inlines a dense block of exit-code/recovery semantics plus repo-specific lifecycle rules that could live in a short reference file; it is above 3 because nothing is buried and the structure is genuinely easy to navigate.

Specificity

The description enumerates seven concrete operations — "planning, creating, inspecting, rebasing, syncing, linking, or recovering" — tied to a specific object ("a stack of dependent PRs") and a specific tool ("the GitHub gh-stack extension"), giving comprehensive coverage of the extension's command surface. It is not a 4 because no meaningful operational gap remains in the action list.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both parts: the "what" ("Manage Cherry Studio stacked branches and pull requests with the GitHub gh-stack extension") and an explicit "when" clause ("Use for planning, creating, inspecting, rebasing, syncing, linking, or recovering a stack of dependent PRs") with concrete trigger activities. A 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit, but here the trigger guidance is direct and enumerated.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "stacked branches", "pull requests", "rebase", "sync", "stack of dependent PRs" — phrases a user managing a PR stack would plausibly say. It falls short of 5 because common variations like "stacked PRs", "PR stack", or "stacked diffs" are absent, though the existing terms still clearly signal the domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — stacked/dependent PR management with a named extension — with minimal conflict risk; generic terms like "pull requests" are consistently qualified by "stacked" or "stack of dependent", keeping triggers distinct from general PR-creation or git skills.