Conciseness

Mostly efficient, but the 'Review Patterns (Quick Reference)' section duplicates material Claude already knows and that is already delegated to references/common-issues.md (the table itself says 'Load When: N+1 queries, magic numbers, patterns'), and the 'Knowledge Reference' line ("SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, design patterns, OWASP Top 10...") is pure concept-name filler. Not 2 because the rest of the body — workflow, constraints, output template — is tight and earns its tokens.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: a 5-step workflow with concrete sub-actions, copy-paste-ready bad/good Python examples (parameterized queries, prefetch_related, named constants), explicit MUST DO/MUST NOT DO constraints, and a 7-section output template with a concrete verdict enum. Specific examples cover the common review cases. Not 4 because no meaningful gaps remain in the inline guidance.

Workflow Clarity

Clear 5-step sequence (Context → Structure → Details → Tests → Feedback) with an explicit checkpoint in step 1 ('Summarize the PR's intent in one sentence before proceeding. If you cannot, ask the author to clarify') and an escalation rule in step 5. Not 5 because steps 2–4 use only soft guiding questions ('Ask: ...') rather than explicit pass/fail validation checkpoints, leaving minor validation gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

The Reference Guide table signals all six real reference files (verified present in references/) one level deep, each with a specific 'Load When' condition — well-organized navigation. Not 5 because the inline 'Review Patterns' section duplicates content that belongs in references/common-issues.md, and the 'Knowledge Reference' section is an unstructured pointer that adds no navigation value; not 3 because the split itself is otherwise appropriate and clearly signaled.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback' — with named examples and comprehensive coverage of the review domain. Not 4 because coverage extends beyond 'minor gaps': input (diffs/files), issue taxonomy, and output format (prioritized structured report) are all specified.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Analyzes code diffs... produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback') and when ('Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues') with concrete trigger phrases. Matches the 5-anchor example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage: 'reviewing pull requests', 'PR reviews', 'code quality audits', 'refactoring', 'review code', 'security issues'. Not 5 because it misses common natural variations like the exact phrase 'code review', and 'code quality' appears twice — slightly redundant rather than broadened with synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicitly positions itself — 'Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass' — which manages overlap well. Not 5 because triggers like 'review code, code quality' and 'checking for security issues' overlap with the very security-reviewer skill it names, keeping minor conflict risk.