Conciseness

The core sweep is lean and repo-specific, but the orphan classes are stated three times (the 'Why lint and review are not enough' bullets, the Quick Reference table, and Common Mistakes), and the two-paragraph Real-World Impact narrative plus rhetorical padding in the Overview ('It just sits there, quietly wrong, until it confuses the next person') add tokens that could be cut. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' — it is clearly not the verbose anchor below nor the 'every token earns its place' anchor above.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance: concrete grep/git grep commands with real patterns ('grep -rn "team-members" src/...', 'git grep -n -i -E "planned[ _-]*mod" -- . ':!*.lock' ':!*package-lock.json''), specific lint commands ('bun run lint', 'pipenv run nox -s lint'), and a hit-classification taxonomy that tells the reader exactly what to do with each result. Specific examples cover the common cases, matching the top anchor.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 5-step checklist (name tokens → grep repo-wide → trace producer/consumer chains → run lint and read the diff → confirm no test asserts the orphan) with explicit validation checkpoints and a recovery rule for the failure case (a test asserting the orphan means 'update or remove it in the same sweep'). The destructive-edits cap does not apply since lint, diff-read, and test-grep validation are all present, so it matches the top anchor with its error-recovery guidance and Quick Reference checklist rather than the 'minor validation gaps' anchor below.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so everything lives in a single SKILL.md. The structure is good — clear section headers, a scannable Quick Reference table, a distinct Common Mistakes section — and at ~115 lines the split is mostly appropriate. However, the file exceeds the short-skill range and the Real-World Impact narrative and the triple-stated orphan classes are content that could be consolidated or moved to a reference file, so it fits the 'good structure; minor organization gaps' anchor rather than the ideal 'well-signaled one-level-deep references' top anchor.

Specificity

The description comprehensively enumerates concrete, specific coverage: 'orphaned string keys in object/label/i18n maps, user-facing copy, OpenAPI enums, dead branches, now-unused imports/props, stale comments, and test fixtures', plus a concrete action ('find the downstream artifacts the deletion orphaned'). Nothing is vague, and coverage of the domain is comprehensive, matching the top anchor rather than the 'minor gaps' anchor below it.

Completeness

Both 'what' and 'when' are explicit with concrete trigger phrases: what — 'to find the downstream artifacts the deletion orphaned. Covers orphaned string keys...'; when — 'Use after deleting a feature...' and 'Trigger when you removed code and want a clean, zero-dead-code diff.' This matches the top anchor; the anchor below (4) is for when-guidance that 'could be more explicit or specific', which does not apply here.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms are comprehensively covered with synonyms: 'deleting a feature, function, component, validation rule, config flag, enum value, status', 'removed code', 'dead code' ('zero-dead-code diff'), 'orphaned', 'lint', 'frontend or backend'. Delete/remove and dead/orphan synonyms are both present; a user asking to clean up after a deletion would naturally say these terms, so it fits the top anchor rather than the 'a few natural terms missing' anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche — the post-deletion dead-code sweep — with distinct triggers ('Use after deleting...', 'Trigger when you removed code') that would not fire for general lint, code-review, or refactoring skills. Conflict risk is minimal, matching the top 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor rather than the 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' anchor.