Conciseness

The pre-flight section is lean and useful, but the "Use this skill when" / "Do not use this skill when" sections are circular boilerplate ("Working on revert track tasks or workflows", "The task is unrelated to revert track") and the Instructions bullets ("Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") are generic filler — matching the anchor for mostly efficient with some unnecessary padding. Not 2 because there is no over-explanation of known concepts and most tokens do work.

Actionability

Pre-flight checks give concrete, executable guidance ("Run `git status`", "Check `conductor/tracks.md` exists", a specific warning dialog with three options), but the "Target Selection" section is an empty heading and no actual revert commands or steps appear anywhere — the anchor for some concrete guidance that is incomplete. Not 4 because the core operation of the skill has zero executable instructions in the body; not 2 because the pre-flight portion is genuinely executable.

Workflow Clarity

The pre-flight sequence is well ordered with explicit checkpoints (uncommitted-change halt with options, merge/rebase detection with "Halt and explain resolution steps"), but this is a destructive git operation with no post-revert verification or feedback loop, and the main workflow is a heading with no steps. Per the guideline capping destructive/batch skills without validation at 3, this cannot exceed 3; it is above 2 because a real, check-pointed pre-flight sequence is present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body points to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` and eleven `./sub-skills/*.md` files, and none of these exist in the bundle — the navigation is a shell of headings linking to nothing, which is broken rather than merely under-organized. Scored against the actual bundle structure per the guidelines, this fits the anchor for minimal structure with unusable references (2); it is not 3 because references that resolve to nothing provide no navigable organization at all.

Specificity

"Git-aware undo by logical work unit (track, phase, or task)" names the domain and one concrete action with its three scope units, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It does not list several specific actions (no revert, stash, or conflict-handling steps), so it is below anchor 4 but well above merely naming a domain.

Completeness

The description gives a clear "what" (git-aware undo scoped to track/phase/task) but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so it sits exactly on the anchor for a clear what with a missing when — and the judging guidelines cap completeness at 3 in that case.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "git", "undo", "track", "phase", and "task" are relevant, but common variations a user would actually say — "revert", "roll back", "uncommit" — are absent, fitting the anchor for some relevant keywords with missing synonyms. Not 4 because the natural phrase coverage is thin, not 2 because the keywords present are domain-appropriate rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Git-aware undo by logical work unit (track, phase, or task)" carves a mostly distinct niche with the track/phase/task scoping, leaving only minor overlap risk with generic git-undo or revert skills. It is not a 5 because "Git-aware undo" alone could still match a plain undo/revert request and pull this skill in wrongly.