Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explanation of what commits are), but contains minor redundancy: Conventional Commits is prohibited in both 'Source Of Truth' and 'Anti-patterns', body-writing guidance appears in both Workflow step 4 and Quick Rules, and the docs link is repeated in two sections. This matches anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed') rather than anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully concrete: a ticket-in-subject rule, a subsystem-omission rule, an enumerated label whitelist ('tests, cleanup, refactor, docs, format, style, setup, misc'), banned prefixes ('WIP, fixup!, squash!, amend!'), suffix placement rules, and two complete worked examples. This matches anchor 5 ('specific examples cover the common cases') and is above anchor 4, which would require gaps in the concrete rules.

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section gives a clear sequence (review full diff → identify motivation → write subject → write body), but there is no explicit self-validation checkpoint before committing; validation is only implied through the SafePush warning and the Quick Rules. This fits anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') — not anchor 3, since the sequence itself is well defined, and not anchor 5, which requires an explicit validation step.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned (Workflow, Source Of Truth, Quick Rules, Examples, Anti-patterns, References) with a clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer to the comprehensive source-of-truth document, and detail is appropriately deferred to that document as the skill is a thin overlay. No bundle files exist, and the structure matches anchor 5's 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; easy navigation'.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions ('commit changes, write or fix a commit message, amend or rename a commit') plus concrete format directives ('use IntelliJ commit format', 'keep requested suffixes such as IJ-MR trailers in a final separate paragraph'), giving comprehensive coverage of the commit-message task space. It clearly matches the anchor-5 example of multiple specific concrete actions rather than anchor 4, which requires minor gaps in coverage that are not evident here.

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'when' ('Use this skill whenever the user asks to commit changes, write or fix a commit message, amend or rename a commit...') and 'what' ('thin repo-specific overlay: use IntelliJ commit format, write full commit messages by default, and keep requested suffixes... in a final separate paragraph'). Both are concrete and explicit, matching the anchor-5 pattern; it is well above anchor 4, where the 'when' would be less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are well covered ('commit changes', 'commit message', 'amend or rename a commit', 'a workflow that includes committing'), matching anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. It falls short of anchor 5 because common variations such as 'git commit', 'squash', or 'commit history' are not included.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill is clearly scoped ('in the IntelliJ repository', 'a thin repo-specific overlay') with a distinct niche, but the trigger phrases themselves ('commit changes', 'write a commit message') are generic and would overlap with a closely related generic commit skill. This fits anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills') better than anchor 5, which requires distinct triggers with minimal conflict risk.