Conciseness

Nearly every paragraph is operational (command flags, JSON fields, branch handling) and assumes Claude's competence rather than explaining concepts. Minor trimming opportunities exist: the 'context and rules are constraints, not content' guidance appears twice (in step 3 and again in Guardrails), and the store-selection paragraph is convoluted ('Every unscoped example of those commands below is shorthand...'), which keeps it at 'minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the lean 5 anchor.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: exact commands with flags (`openspec status --change "<name>" --json`, `openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json`), the exact JSON fields to read (`schemaName`, `artifacts`, `isPlanningComplete`, `resolvedOutputPath`), and concrete handling for edge cases like glob output paths and `skipped` artifacts. It is not the 4 anchor because no pseudocode or missing key details were found.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence (select change -> check status -> act by status -> show progress) with explicit validation checkpoints: parse status JSON before acting, verify the artifact file exists at `resolvedOutputPath` after writing, re-read dependencies from disk rather than conversation memory, and STOP rules bounding each invocation. Error-recovery branches (root: null handling, store-declaration errors, the 'no artifacts ready' fallback) match the top anchor's feedback-loop standard.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is self-contained with no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) and is organized into well-labeled sections (Store selection, Project check, Input, Steps, Output, Guidelines, Guardrails) with no buried or nested references. At ~116 lines it exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill case, and some material (store-selection mechanics, the multi-branch project-check matrix) could plausibly live in a reference file, which holds it at 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than the ideal split of 5.

Specificity

"Continue working on an OpenSpec change by creating the next artifact" names the domain and exactly one concrete action; there is no enumeration of what artifact creation involves (e.g., reading instructions, applying templates), so it matches the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the 'several specific actions' anchor at 4.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is stated first ("Continue working on an OpenSpec change by creating the next artifact") and 'when' is given with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when the user wants to progress their change... Also use when the user says 'openspec continue' or 'opsx continue'"). This matches the top anchor; it is not the 4 anchor because the 'when' clause is not merely present but specific and multi-phrased.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural triggers including literal command aliases ("openspec continue", "opsx continue") plus "progress their change", "create the next artifact", "continue their workflow". A few natural user phrasings (e.g., "keep going on the change", "pick up where I left off") are absent, so it sits at 'good coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than comprehensive at 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenSpec change", "artifact", and the exact commands "openspec continue"/"opsx continue" form a clear niche with minimal generic overlap. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because sibling OpenSpec skills (create/new-change, archive, list) plausibly share the same 'OpenSpec' trigger vocabulary, creating minor overlap risk with closely related skills.