Conciseness

Lean and efficient: every sentence carries task-specific instruction (repeat thresholds, safety boundaries, issue format) with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The two examples ('reads local storage directly', 'a colour that skips the theme') are minimal and load-bearing, matching the 5 anchor.

Actionability

Fully actionable instruction-only guidance: concrete command ('gh pr list --state all'), a specific corpus (15 most recent PRs), an exact title format ('Rule: <the rule in a few words>'), a structured body spec, and a 'Done when' success criterion. Per the code_vs_instruction note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this concrete — matches the 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

A clear read → classify repeats → check for duplicates → file sequence with real checkpoints ('Skip findings that were refuted', 'Check the open issues first', 'Nothing found is a fine result'). Not 5 because the sequence is implied by section order rather than explicitly ordered, and there is no post-filing verification step; it exceeds 4's 'minor validation gaps' only marginally, so 4 is the best fit.

Progressive Disclosure

A compact (~50-line) self-contained skill with no bundle files and well-organized sections (safety, sources, repeat criteria, filing format) — nothing that belongs in a separate reference file. The simple-skill exception applies: well-organized sections with no need for external references warrant a 5.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Read recent code review on this repository's pull requests', 'find the mistakes reviewers keep catching', 'file a GitHub issue proposing a rule' — plus an explicit scope boundary ('Files issues only; never changes code or docs'). Comprehensive with no evident coverage gaps, matching the 5 anchor rather than the 4 anchor.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (read reviews, find repeated mistakes, file a rule proposal issue) and when via a concrete 'Use when running the rule mining maintenance loop, or when asked what the agent keeps getting wrong in review' clause. This matches the 5 anchor's requirement for both what and when with concrete trigger phrases; 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ('code review', 'pull requests', 'keeps getting wrong in review', 'rule mining maintenance loop') but a few natural user phrasings like 'PR feedback' or 'repeated review comments' are missing. Matches the 4 anchor (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — mining repeated review mistakes into proposed rule issues — with distinct triggers that would not fire for a general code-review or issue-filing skill. The 'Files issues only' boundary further reduces overlap risk, matching the 5 anchor.