The body is lean and instruction-dense — each step leads with a bold directive then concrete commands with no concept padding (e.g. 'No citation → not verified → do not close'), matching the score-3 anchor for lean, competence-assuming content; not score 2 because there is no unnecessary explanation to trim.

Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands (gh issue view --json ..., git log --oneline -n 20 ..., gh issue close ... --comment '...') with concrete flags and a sample comment, matching the score-3 anchor; the few placeholders like <release-branch> are explicitly-justified flexibility, not pseudocode, so it is above score 2.

Six clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints ('No citation → not verified → do not close', git branch --contains / git merge-tree to confirm the real landing branch) plus a 'Partial fix → note, don't close' error-recovery branch, matching the score-3 anchor for a clear sequence with explicit validation and feedback loops; not score 2 because checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit.

No bundle files exist; the body is a single-purpose, well-sectioned skill (When to use, Workflow, Partial fix, Red flags) with no nested references and an inline one-level pointer to repo infra (auto-close-harvested.yml), matching the score-3 anchor for well-organized, appropriately self-contained content; not score 2 because nothing that should be split is bloating it and there is no monolithic wall or multi-level reference chain.

Lists multiple concrete actions — verifying the landed commit/behavior, posting a positive crediting comment, and closing — matching the score-3 anchor for several specific concrete actions; not score 2 because it is more comprehensive than naming a domain and a few actions.

Clearly states what it does but the 'when' is only implied ('resolved CodeWhale issues') with no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the guideline a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2; not score 3 because there are no explicit triggers, and not score 1 because the 'what' is fully present.

Natural terms a maintainer would say ('close', 'resolved', 'verify the commit', 'title alone') are well covered, matching the score-3 anchor for good coverage of natural user vocabulary; slightly skill-internal phrasing like 'crediting comment' keeps it from being perfect but it is above score 2's 'some relevant keywords, missing common variations'.

Targets a clear niche (closing a specific repo's issues via a verify-then-credit protocol) with distinct triggers ('never from title alone'), matching the score-3 anchor for a clear niche unlikely to conflict; not score 2 because it is far more specific than generic overlap-level descriptions.