Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence (no concept explanations), but the Guardrails section partially restates earlier steps (e.g. 'Always prompt for change selection if not provided' duplicates Step 1's IMPORTANT note; 'Show clear summary of what happened' duplicates Step 6). Not 5: these repetitions could be trimmed.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands throughout ('openspec list --json', 'openspec status --change "<name>" --json', 'mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive', 'mv openspec/changes/<name> ...'), exact JSON fields to parse, exact paths, and ready-made prompt option strings. Not 5: Step 4's 'Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec... Determine what changes would be applied' offers no concrete comparison method and defers entirely to another skill.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced six-step process with explicit validation checkpoints before the destructive move (artifact status check, task count check, delta-sync assessment, target-exists check with fail-and-suggest behavior) and confirmation loops via AskUserQuestion. The destructive-operation cap does not apply because validation steps are present.

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned file (Input / Steps / Output On Success / Guardrails) with no bundle files to organize; the one external dependency (the openspec-sync-specs skill) is clearly signaled and one level deep. Not 5: the body inlines the full instruction set with no reference structure, which is acceptable here but leaves nothing rewarded at the top anchor.

Specificity

Names the domain ('Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow') and a single core action, but does not enumerate the several concrete operations the skill actually performs (listing changes, checking artifact/task status, syncing specs, moving to archive). Not 4: only one action is stated, leaving coverage non-comprehensive.

Completeness

Both a clear 'what' (archive a completed change) and an explicit 'when' ('Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete') are present. Not 5: the 'when' clause largely restates the 'what' rather than adding distinct concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit 'Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete' supplies natural terms (archive, finalize, implementation is complete). Not 5: missing common variations users would say, e.g. 'done with a change' or 'wrap up the change'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to archiving changes in the experimental workflow, with triggers specific to finalization after implementation. Not 5: minor overlap risk with sibling openspec workflow skills (e.g. sync or complete-change skills) sharing terms like 'change' and 'spec'.