Conciseness

The body is efficient — tables, checklists, and terse rules with little padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — though some dense SDD jargon (ask-on-risk, auto-chain, size:exception) could be tightened.

Actionability

Concrete checklists, a weak-vs-better split-examples table with real commit messages, and executable git commands give mostly executable guidance; the Commands section is sparse and leaves minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered PR Relationship sequence plus the Work Unit Checklist provide clear sequencing and explicit validation checkpoints (focused test command/result, runtime result, rollback boundary), but an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop is not shown.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so the skill is self-contained; it is well-organized into clearly headed sections (When to Use, Critical Rules, Checklist, SDD Relationship) with minor organization gaps rather than the ideal one-level-deep reference split.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "Plan commits as reviewable work units", "commit splitting", "chained PRs", "keeping tests and docs with code" — with only minor coverage gaps, matching the anchor for several specific actions.

Completeness

Clearly states both the "what" ("Plan commits as reviewable work units") and an explicit "when" via the "Trigger:" clause with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

The explicit "Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code" provides good natural keyword coverage a developer would say, though a few synonyms (e.g. "stacked PRs") are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The work-unit/commit-planning niche is mostly distinct with specific triggers, though there is minor overlap risk with general git or commit-message skills.