Conciseness

The step list and CLI commands are lean, but the Guardrails section ("Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements", "Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task") largely restates the pause conditions already given in step 6, and the closing "Fluid Workflow Integration" section repeats the artifact-update guidance. This matches 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'; not 2 because there is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and not 4 because the duplicated sections are real trim candidates.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands are given ("openspec status --change \"<name>\" --json", "openspec instructions apply --change \"<name>\" --json"), an explicit checkbox transition ("- [ ] → - [x]"), state handling for blocked/all_done, and full output templates. Not 5 because the core instruction "Make the code changes required" stays high-level with no example of how a task entry maps to an action; not 3 because everything around that step is executable and specific.

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step sequence is clear with explicit state handling and pause conditions, but the task loop is a batch operation over many tasks and there is no validation step before marking each task complete (no verify/test/re-run checkpoint — just "✓ Task complete"). The rubric's cap for batch operations without validation holds this at 3; not 2 because the sequence and checkpoints for ambiguity/errors are otherwise explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The single file is well organized with clearly labeled sections (Input, Steps, three Output scenarios, Guardrails) and needs no external references since all specifics come from CLI output. Not 5 because at ~160 lines the three full output templates and the Fluid Workflow section could be split or trimmed; not 3 because nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined and navigation is easy.

Specificity

"Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change" names a concrete domain (OpenSpec changes) with one concrete action (implement tasks), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. Not 4 because there is no list of several specific actions (e.g., checking progress, marking tasks, handling blockers); not 2 because the domain and action are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

It answers both parts: what ("Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change") and when ("Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks"), with an explicit Use-when clause. Not 5 because the 'what' is a single thin action and the 'when' trigger "work through tasks" is generic rather than a concrete, distinctive trigger phrase.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks" covers the natural phrasings for this workflow, which is good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common variations like "finish the tasks", "complete the change", or any file/extension cues are missing; not 3 because the included terms are exactly what a user would naturally say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenSpec change" establishes a clear niche, so it is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against closely related sibling skills (e.g., continue/archive change workflows). Not 5 because the generic trigger "work through tasks" could fire for ordinary task-list work outside OpenSpec; not 3 because the OpenSpec framing keeps it well above broadly overlapping skills.