Conciseness

Mostly efficient operational content, but the chunking limits are stated twice (the Step 2 table/algorithm and again verbatim in the Constraints table), and the Example Invocation block repeats the same agent call three times. Not 4 because the duplication is genuine tightening work; not 2 because there is no conceptual over-explanation — everything is operational.

Actionability

Concrete, usable guidance throughout: exact glob patterns, an explicit exclusion list, a numeric chunking table, a complete copy-paste agent prompt template, and three worked usage examples with flows. Not 5 because the Example Invocation Pattern uses illustrative `<Agent tool call>` pseudo-blocks rather than literal parameters, and template placeholders like [file1.ts] leave minor gaps for edge cases.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step sequence is clearly ordered with some checkpoints (empty-match handling, >50/>100 file warnings, per-file failure continuation), but this is a batch operation with no post-run validation or verification step — no spot-check of edited files, test run, or re-read to confirm agent-reported success. The rubric's cap for batch operations without validation holds it at 3 despite the otherwise strong sequencing. Not 2 because steps are well defined with error-handling checkpoints, far above the anchor's 'validation absent and steps poorly defined'.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the body references none (no dangling references to nonexistent files), and sections are well organized with clear headers, tables, and templates. Not 5 because at ~296 lines, content that could live in a separate reference file (usage examples, output format template) is inlined; not 3 because structure and navigation are good and nothing is buried.

Specificity

Names the domain and concrete actions ("Automatically discovers files, splits into chunks, and processes with parallel worker agents"), matching anchor 4, but the second-person phrase "you may suggest the user type `/batch-api` themselves" triggers the rubric's third-person voice penalty, reducing the score by 1. It does not fall to 2 because the actions listed go beyond the generic single-action examples at that anchor.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ("Execute batch operations on multiple files in parallel") and 'when' guidance exists ("For many independent single-turn transforms (translate/rewrite/extract each file into a new file) that can wait minutes to hours... not suited to in-place edits or tasks needing tool feedback"), but the when-clause is framed around when to suggest the sibling `/batch-api` rather than explicitly when to use `/batch` itself. Not 5 because the trigger guidance for this skill is indirect; not 3 because explicit applicability conditions and boundaries are present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms users would say — "batch", "multiple files", "parallel", "translate/rewrite/extract", "file pattern" — but common synonyms like "bulk", "all files at once", or "mass update" are missing. Not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive; not 3 because it goes well beyond the sparse single-keyword examples at that anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — parallel multi-file batch processing — with explicit boundaries ("not suited to in-place edits or tasks needing tool feedback"), but there is minor overlap/confusion risk with the closely related `/batch-api` skill referenced in the same description. Not 5 because the description itself invites ambiguity between two similar commands; not 3 because the framing is far more specific than generic file-processing skills.