Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative throughout, teaching nothing Claude already knows, and every section carries operational rules. It falls just short of anchor 5 because the question-tool rules in "Interactive mode rules" are restated more fully in references/modes.md — a minor duplication that could be trimmed by trusting the reference.

Actionability

Concrete inline guidance is abundant: exact command ("`<repo-root>` = `git rev-parse --show-toplevel`"), exact paths ("references/personas/<reviewer-name>.md"), explicit conditionals ("Run this pass if any of the conditional judgment trio was activated"), and failure routes ("A capacity rejection is backpressure, not reviewer failure: wait and retry"). Not anchor 5 because a few mechanics (the parallelism bound, the announcement format) are named but defined only in references; not anchor 3 because what is stated inline is specific and executable.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1-2-3-5 are clearly sequenced with the reference to read at each step, explicit validation checkpoints ("Every resolved path must be readable on disk. If one is not, dispatch **no** personas"; "Wait until every dispatched agent has returned"), a "Done when" completion checklist, and feedback loops for error recovery (capacity retry, stop-as-incomplete while preserving collected outcomes, peer timeouts named in Coverage). This matches anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Verified against the actual bundle: every path the body references exists (modes, document-intake, persona-selection, dispatch, cross-model-review, synthesis-and-presentation, walkthrough, bulk-preview, subagent-template, findings-schema), alongside 7 persona files and 3 scripts. The 77-line overview signals each read per phase, defers interactive-only references until evidence is complete, and uses @-includes for the dispatch payload; cross-references among reference files are lateral single-source citations, not nested chains. This matches anchor 5.

Specificity

Names the domain (requirements, plans, specs) and one concrete action ("Review ... with role-specific lenses"), but "role-specific lenses" is abstract and no further concrete actions (e.g., dispatch reviewer personas, apply authorized fixes) are stated. It sits at anchor 3: not anchor 4 because several specific actions are not listed, and not anchor 2 because a concrete action beyond bare domain naming is present.

Completeness

Both parts are present in third person: what ("Review requirements, plans, or specs with role-specific lenses") and when ("Use when the user wants to improve an existing planning document"). Not anchor 3 because the "when" is explicit rather than weakly implied; not anchor 5 because the "when" is a single condition and the "what" is abstract, lacking the concrete trigger phrases of the exemplar.

Trigger Term Quality

"requirements, plans, or specs", "improve", and "planning document" are natural user phrases with good coverage of the domain. Not anchor 3 because coverage goes well beyond one or two generic keywords; not anchor 5 because common variations like "PRD", "RFC", "design doc", or "spec review" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"role-specific lenses" plus "planning document" carve a recognizable niche for structured document review. Not anchor 3 because it is more specific than generic document-file handling; not anchor 5 because there is minor overlap risk with adjacent document-editing and general feedback skills.