Conciseness

There is no padding with concepts Claude already knows (no rebase tutorials, no git basics), and the "Result-bound verification" section is lean. But the ~100-line mermaid state machine carries heavy abstraction cost — labels like "bind current result OID R", "reobserve the named result ref", "checkpoint only task-authorized changes after worker checkpoint" require multiple re-reads to extract instruction, so the chart is noticeably over-dense relative to what it communicates. This sits at 3 ("mostly efficient but... could be tightened") rather than 4, because a substantial fraction of the flowchart's token load (worktree-writer negotiation, handoff obligations, many near-duplicate failure edges) could be compressed without losing guidance.

Actionability

The body contains zero concrete commands — no `git rebase <source> <target>`, `git rebase --continue/--abort`, `git worktree add`, or `git push --force-with-lease` appears anywhere; every operation is stated abstractly ("create start-only branch worktree", "start fresh replay in bound start worktree", "push immutable R with the authorized exact lease"). The decision logic is detailed, which lifts it above the 1 anchor ("only describes rather than instructs"), but the specific executable steps are missing, matching the 2 anchor ("high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute").

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is exceptionally thorough as a sequence: a complete state machine with explicit validation checkpoints ("bind validation to the immutable result commit R", "verify checks left tracked source unchanged", "Exit zero; post-fetch destination equals R"), feedback loops (correction commit → "invalidate old evidence and rebind R" → rerun checks; push lease retry), and a dedicated Recover path for every failure edge. It falls short of the 5 anchor only on readability — the cryptic node/label vocabulary ("Satisfied{...ancestry-only; T ancestor of S?}", "BindWT", "FinishMode") makes an otherwise clear sequence hard to follow, leaving minor clarity gaps consistent with the 4 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview plus a point-of-need index: all five referenced files exist in ./references/ (active-rebase-recovery.md, conflict-and-ambiguity.md, history-shape.md, named-stash.md, publication.md), each linked exactly where the workflow needs it ("read [named stash](./references/named-stash.md); save and bind exact entry"), one level deep with no nested references inside them. This matches the 5 anchor ("clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split") — detailed procedures live in the references while the skill body carries only the flow and the verification policy.

Specificity

The description enumerates the complete rebase lifecycle — "Start a local Git rebase", "replay of a named source ref, or of the current branch, onto a named target", "continue or abort an active rebase" — which is comprehensive, concrete coverage for this domain. It fits the 5 anchor ("multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage") rather than 4, since start/continue/abort is the full set of operations the skill performs and each is stated concretely rather than generically.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Start a local Git rebase... or continue or abort an active rebase") and when ("Use only when local history replay will start or is active; do not use for merge-based branch updates, repository merge settings, pull-request or merge-request merging, or push-only requests"). The 'Use when' trigger guidance is explicit and concrete, matching the 5 anchor exactly; not 4 because the 'when' clause leaves nothing implicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms users would say — "rebase", "Git rebase", "rebase-then-push", "continue", "abort" — matching the 4 anchor ("good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing"). It falls short of 5 because common phrasings like "force push" (only implied via "rebase-then-push"), "conflict", and "onto main/the target branch" are absent from the description itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (local history replay) and actively disambiguates adjacent skills — "do not use for merge-based branch updates, repository merge settings, pull-request or merge-request merging, or push-only requests" — minimizing conflict risk. This matches the 5 anchor ("clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk"); the 4 anchor would apply only if an adjacent skill still overlapped, and the explicit exclusions cover the nearest neighbors (merge, PR merge, push).