Conciseness

The body is dense and prescriptive — exact commands, exact user-facing messages, and templates with no re-teaching of concepts Claude already knows (e.g. "Ask git, never compare two whole documents by eye" instructs rather than explains). A few spots could still be trimmed (the M=0 edge-case table rows and repeated option listings), so it is efficient with minor instances of over-explanation rather than every token earning its place.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste commands ("git diff HEAD -- design/gdd/[filename].md", "bash .claude/scripts/md-section.sh extract <adr> \"GDD Requirements Addressed\"", the md-section.sh replace heredoc), exact error/stop messages to emit, report templates, and scripted user questions cover the common cases. Absence of general-purpose code is appropriate for an instruction-only skill.

Workflow Clarity

Ten numbered phases with explicit stop conditions ("Nothing to propagate." Stop; N=0 and M=0 branches), an explicit denominator table (N, M), a technical review gate with verdict-driven recovery loops (REJECT → "analyse the impact again first"; NOT ASSESSED → supply missing input and re-run), and permission checks before every write. Validation checkpoints are explicit throughout, including the batch ADR check.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the single-file body is well organized with clear phase headers and one-level-deep, clearly signaled references to project resources (.claude/scripts/adr-status.sh, md-section.sh, .claude/docs/…). It falls short of the 5 anchor because all content — including the change-impact document template and TD gate brief — lives inline in a ~250-line monolith rather than being split across reference files.

Specificity

"Finds architecture decisions (ADRs) made stale by a changed GDD and walks through resolving each" names a precise domain and concrete actions (find stale ADRs, walk through resolution) with only minor coverage gaps (reporting and traceability steps are not named). It is more specific than the anchor-3 example of two generic actions, but not comprehensive enough for a 5.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both: what ("Finds architecture decisions (ADRs) made stale by a changed GDD and walks through resolving each") and when ("Use when the user changed a number or rule in a GDD and asks which ADRs or architecture decisions are now out of date") with a concrete trigger phrase, matching the 5 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

"changed a number or rule in a GDD", "asks which ADRs or architecture decisions are now out of date" gives good natural keyword coverage including the key user phrasings. A few natural synonyms ("stale", "update ADRs after a design change", "impact") are missing, keeping it below the comprehensive 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — propagating GDD changes into stale ADRs — with triggers ("changed a number or rule in a GDD", "which ADRs… out of date") that are distinct from related skills like /architecture-review, so conflict risk is minimal.