Conciseness

The body is dense with project-specific instructions Claude could not infer (verdict conventions, register schema, scoring formula) and avoids generic concept explanations. Minor trimmable parts remain: the six categories appear three times (scan list, Add-Mode options, register spelling) and the closing Rules section states opinion/rationale ("Tech debt is not inherently bad — it is a tool") that adds little operational value, so it sits at efficient-with-minor-over-explanation rather than fully lean.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready throughout: exact scan patterns (TODO, FIXME, HACK, @deprecated, >500-line files, >50-line functions), verbatim AskUserQuestion prompts with enumerated options, an exact prioritization formula (impact ÷ effort with Low=1…Critical=4, S=1…XL=4, rounded to one decimal), and a complete register table template with per-column rules. This matches the fully-executable anchor covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Each mode is a clearly sequenced workflow with explicit validation checkpoints: the zero-source-files and unresolved-code-root checks before scanning, register-existence checks before prioritize/report, match-before-appendting dedup checks, and approval gates before every write, each with a defined terminal verdict (COMPLETE/BLOCKED/FAIL/NOT ASSESSED). The batch scan and register writes are guarded by these verification steps, so the missing-validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The single file is well-organized with clearly signaled phases and the register-format spec inlined where every mode needs it, and external pointers (.claude/docs/automation-modes.md, code-root-resolution.md) are one level deep and named in place. There are no bundle reference files, and at ~200 lines some material (the ten-column register spec, or the per-mode prompts) could be split into a reference file, leaving it at good-structure-with-minor-gaps rather than the ideal split.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Track, categorize and prioritize technical debt", "scans for debt indicators, maintains a register" — giving a clear picture of capability. It falls short of a 5 because coverage has minor gaps: the indicators scanned (TODO/FIXME/HACK/deprecated) and the reporting mode are not named, so the action list is not comprehensive.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (track, categorize, prioritize, scan, maintain a register), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or any equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not a 2 because the 'what' is concrete and multi-part, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

"technical debt" is the key natural trigger, supplemented by "debt indicators" and "register", but common variations users would actually say — "tech debt", "code debt", "TODO/FIXME cleanup", "refactoring backlog" — are missing. This matches the anchor for some relevant keywords while missing common variations/synonyms, rather than the good-coverage anchor above it.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Technical debt" is a clear niche with distinct triggers (debt register, debt indicators), keeping conflict risk low. Minor overlap remains with closely related code-quality/review skills, so it does not fully meet the minimal-conflict bar of a 5.