Conciseness

The body avoids explaining known concepts and every sentence is workflow-specific, but at ~210 lines it restates the same rules multiple times: the not-applicable/not-verified rules for removal-only changes appear in step 4, step 6, and the report-format section, and the store-selection paragraph re-explains the --store mechanics several ways. This fits anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but could be tightened") better than anchor 4, since the redundancy is more than minor.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags ("openspec status --change \"<name>\" --json", "git -C \"<planningHome.root>\" log -p -- openspec/specs/<capability-path>/spec.md"), exact requirement-name normalization rules, exact issue/recommendation strings, and a full report template. The one soft spot is "Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement", which lacks a concrete search command, keeping it at anchor 4 rather than fully copy-paste-ready anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Eight explicitly sequenced steps with validation checkpoints at every stage: root/null checks before any write, taskTrackingConfigured and unavailableTrackingFiles handling, unusable-baseline handling, the git empty-output caveat, and exhaustive final-assessment branches. The skill is read-only advisory verification ("Do not implement tasks or archive the change during verification"), so the destructive/batch cap does not apply; error-recovery guidance is present throughout, matching anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

In-file structure is good (numbered steps, bolded sub-checks, headers), but there are no bundle files at all: roughly a hundred lines of REMOVED/RENAMED baseline-recovery and git-history rules plus the full report template are inlined in a 210-line SKILL.md where they would work better as one-level-deep references. Since it is well over 50 lines, the simple-skill exception does not apply; this fits anchor 3 ("content that should be separate is inline") rather than anchor 4, which expects content to be appropriately split across files.

Specificity

The description names a concrete core action ("Verify implementation matches OpenSpec change artifacts") elaborated by three specific check dimensions ("complete, correct, and coherent before archiving"), giving several specific capabilities with only minor coverage gaps (e.g., report generation is not mentioned). It exceeds anchor 3 (which covers only 1-2 concrete actions) but is not the comprehensive multi-action list of anchor 5.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" ("Verify implementation matches OpenSpec change artifacts") and the "when" with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving. Also use when the user says 'openspec verify' or 'opsx verify'"). This matches anchor 5; the when-clause is explicit and specific, so it is not anchor 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Concrete command triggers are present ("openspec verify", "opsx verify") alongside natural terms like "validate", "implementation", and "archiving". A few natural phrasings users might say are missing (e.g., "check the change", "review tasks", "spec drift"), so it fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The OpenSpec niche is clear with distinct command triggers, but the generic-sounding when-clause ("validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent") could fire on non-OpenSpec verification requests, creating minor overlap risk with general code-review skills. That keeps it at anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.