Conciseness

Lean and dense with actionable specifics and guardrails; it assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining concepts it already knows, with every line earning its place.

Actionability

Concrete tool calls and parameters are named inline (team_create, read_only: true, subagent_type: 'general-purpose', working_dir, request_shutdown, enter_worktree, send_message), but no full example invocation is shown, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clear investigate → shutdown → worktree → implement → verify → integrate sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (accept/reject on evidence, verify the worktree result, run verification once) and feedback loops (reassign rejected work, follow up on conflicting evidence).

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, organized into well-signaled sections (Build one bounded team, Pin the only writer, Keep coordination bounded), matching the simple-skill exception for a 5.

Specificity

Lists several specific capabilities ('enforced read-only workers', 'worktree-pinned writer', 'shared tasks', 'peer messages', 'Agent View tabs') with only minor gaps — the investigate-then-implement flow and fallback behavior are not surfaced here.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (coordinate a bounded team with read-only workers and a worktree writer) and there is explicit trigger guidance ('Invoke explicitly with /coordinate'), but the 'when' describes the invocation method rather than the scenarios that call for the skill.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like 'Coordinate', 'team', 'teammates' plus the explicit '/coordinate' invocation give good coverage, though a few common phrasings users might say (e.g. 'parallel research', 'agent team') are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — Qwen Code team coordination with read-only enforcement and a single worktree writer — with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk against generic skills.