Conciseness

The body is dense and functional — rules table, checklist, and split examples with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The Commands section ('git diff --stat', 'git log --oneline -5') shows basic git commands Claude already knows, so not every token earns its place.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: a rules table, before/after commit-message examples ('feat(auth): add token validation domain model and tests'), a pre-commit checklist, and runnable git commands. Minor gaps — e.g., it requires recording a 'Focused test command and exact result' but shows no example of that record's format.

Workflow Clarity

The PR Relationship section gives a numbered 4-step sequence (build smallest unit → include verification → commit → promote to chained PRs) and the Work Unit Checklist acts as an explicit pre-commit checkpoint. Not a 5 because there is no explicit validate → fix → retry feedback loop; committing is not a destructive/batch operation so the score-3 cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with clear headers, single-file structure, and no content that clearly belongs in a separate bundle file. It exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill case that would merit a 5, and the dense ODD Relationship section is the one candidate for extraction, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain and one concrete action — 'Plan commits as reviewable work units' — but does not list several specific capabilities. It matches the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' anchor; a 4 would require several listed actions and a 2 would mean generic or minimal actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('Plan commits as reviewable work units') and when, via an explicit 'Trigger:' clause with concrete trigger phrases — matching the top anchor verbatim in structure. A 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit than it is here.

Trigger Term Quality

'Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code' gives good natural-phrase coverage. Not a 5 because common synonyms users might say are missing (e.g., 'stacked PRs', 'split up commits', 'reviewable diffs').

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (work-unit commit planning) with distinct triggers like 'commit splitting' and 'chained PRs'. Minor overlap risk remains with adjacent commit-message-writing and general PR-preparation skills, keeping it below the minimal-conflict anchor 5.