Conciseness

The bd-vs-TodoWrite decision is covered three separate times ("When to Use bd vs TodoWrite", "Test Yourself: bd or TodoWrite?", and "Integration with TodoWrite"), and the database auto-discovery rules ("Uses .beads/*.db in current project if exists / Falls back to ~/.beads/default.db") are stated twice in nearly identical wording. Mostly efficient and free of explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but clearly could be tightened, matching anchor 3 rather than 2 since the padding is redundancy rather than patronizing explanation.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready and cover the common cases: `bd create "Add OAuth" -p 0 -t feature`, `bd update issue-123 --status in_progress`, `bd dep add auth-epic auth-setup --type parent-child`, `bd close issue-1 issue-2 issue-3 --reason "..."`. Concrete good/bad note examples, copy-able checklists, report formats, and troubleshooting workarounds (e.g., `bd list | grep -i "search term"`) match anchor 5's fully executable, common-case-covering guidance.

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with checklists (Session Start Checklist, Progress Checkpoint, Issue Creation Checklist) and self-check validation ("Test yourself: If compaction happened right now, could future-me resume from these notes?"), plus conditional recovery paths ("If bd ready returns empty but issues exist: bd blocked --json" and a Troubleshooting section). Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5: the Issue Lifecycle numbers Planning (3) after Execution (2), and bulk operations like `bd close issue-1 issue-2 issue-3` have no verification step before closing.

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled and one level deep with a useful "Read When" table, but the six referenced files (references/BOUNDARIES.md, CLI_REFERENCE.md, WORKFLOWS.md, DEPENDENCIES.md, ISSUE_CREATION.md, STATIC_DATA.md) do not exist in the skill's bundle, so the disclosure structure does not actually resolve and navigation breaks. Additionally, the ~640-line body retains substantial material (TodoWrite integration patterns, full pattern walkthroughs, decision criteria repeated three times) that the reference files are meant to hold, fitting anchor 3 ("content that should be separate is inline") despite the good signaling.

Specificity

"Track complex, multi-session work with dependency graphs" names the domain (issue tracking) and 1-2 concrete actions (tracking work, managing dependency graphs), but does not enumerate further capabilities such as creating issues, capturing handoff notes, or resuming work. This matches anchor 3 ("Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive") rather than 4, which requires several specific actions listed.

Completeness

The what is explicit ("Track complex, multi-session work with dependency graphs using bd (beads) issue tracker") and the when is explicit with three concrete triggers ("Use when work spans multiple sessions, has complex dependencies, or requires persistent context across compaction cycles"), plus a negative boundary ("For simple single-session linear tasks, TodoWrite remains appropriate"). This clearly matches anchor 5 (both what and when with concrete trigger phrases); anchor 4 would require the when to be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "work spans multiple sessions", "complex dependencies", "persistent context", and "compaction cycles" give good keyword coverage of what a user would say, and "bd (beads)" names the tool. A few natural synonyms are missing (e.g., "task tracking", "resume work", "project memory"), which fits anchor 4 ("Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing") rather than 5's comprehensive synonym/extension coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The tool name "bd (beads)" and the multi-session/compaction triggers carve out a clear niche, and the explicit TodoWrite boundary ("For simple single-session linear tasks, TodoWrite remains appropriate") defuses the closest competing skill. Minor overlap risk remains with generic task- or issue-tracking requests, fitting anchor 4 ("Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk") rather than 5's minimal conflict risk.