Conciseness

The ~44-line body is entirely rule- and decision-shaped with zero filler: every line states a constraint ("400 changed lines", "≤60 minutes", "one honest slicing pass") or a decision-table row. No concepts Claude already knows are explained, and nothing reads as padding. Matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable in the body — hard thresholds, an unambiguous decision table, numbered execution steps, and an explicit output contract — with copy-paste `gh pr create` commands in the referenced bundle file. Not a 5 because the body's steps ('Estimate changed lines and identify independent work units', 'Create branches/PRs using the chosen strategy') are direction-level rather than containing the concrete commands themselves, which live one level deep.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step sequence includes an explicit validation checkpoint ("Verify each PR independently: CI/tests/docs/manual checks, rollback scope, and clean diff") plus error-recovery feedback paths: polluted diffs get 'retarget or rebase until only the current work unit appears', and a failed slicing pass stops and reports with a size:exception recommendation. This matches the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation, recovery branches, and checklist-style rules; the destructive/batch cap of 3 does not apply because verification is present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview organized under labeled sections (Activation Contract, Hard Rules, Decision Gates, Execution Steps, Output Contract) with a single one-level-deep reference ([references/chaining-details.md]) that exists, contains exactly what is advertised (strategy comparison table, branch diagrams, gh commands, PR body guidance), and itself contains no nested references. Matches the well-signaled one-level-deep anchor.

Specificity

"Split oversized changes into chained PRs that protect review focus" names the domain and one core concrete action (split into chained PRs) plus its purpose, but stops short of listing multiple distinct actions, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor. Not a 4 because coverage of what the skill does (slicing strategies, tracker PRs, review budgets) is not enumerated in the description.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'Trigger:' clause gives concrete when-guidance (400-line threshold, stacked PRs, review slices) and the second sentence states clearly what it does ("Split oversized changes into chained PRs that protect review focus"). This matches the anchor for explicitly answering both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases; the trigger guidance is equivalent to an explicit 'Use when' clause, so the completeness cap of 3 does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

"PRs over 400 lines, stacked PRs, review slices" are natural phrases a user would say, with a concrete threshold (400 lines) and the key synonym 'stacked'. Not a 5 because common variations like 'large PR', 'oversized PR', or 'reviewer load' are missing, though 'chained' does appear in the what-clause.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (oversized PR decomposition into chained/stacked PRs) with distinct triggers ('stacked PRs', 'PRs over 400 lines', 'review slices') that no generic PR-review or git skill would claim. Minimal conflict risk with other skills.