Conciseness

Dense, imperative prose with no concept explanations and no padding — every section instructs rather than describes. Not a 5 because of minor redundancy: the tmp/review gitignore advice appears in both Usage and Gotchas, the feature-overview format is described in both Workflow step 3 and 'The overview' section, and some page-UI mechanics ('Inside a recommendation the reviewer can also accept, edit or dismiss each comment') could live in references/page.md. Not a 3 because there is no unnecessary explanation of things Claude already knows.

Actionability

The 14-line usage block is copy-paste ready with concrete invocations for every input form (commit, range, PR, re-review, stdin), and the workflow names exact commands and paths: 'node $S/build-review.cjs <ref> --pr <N> --serve', 'node $S/pr-media.cjs --pr <N>', 'pbpaste | node $S/submit-review.cjs - [--dry-run]', '~/.claude/feature-review/preferences.md'. Specific examples cover the common cases, including edge handling like '-o path.html' for repos that don't gitignore tmp/.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps (Gather → Load preferences and rules → Read the change → Build → Open → Report) with real checkpoints: the build 'runs the self-check and guide validation', step 6 reports the self-check, first-use preferences are handled explicitly, and 'The server exits after a successful submit, which notifies you'. Not a 5 because the body never says what to do when the self-check or guide validation fails — no explicit fix-and-retry loop — and some checkpoints (CI, media capture failure) are only implied. Not a 3 because validation is explicit and the destructive-adjacent action (submitting) is gated: 'Never submit on the user's behalf from the terminal unless they ask.'

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a true overview: each section summarizes its topic and defers full formats to a named, verified reference file ('Full format, guidance and examples: references/overview.md'; 'Format, the auto-review rules in full ... references/reading-guide.md'; 'recipes in references/gathering.md'), all 8 referenced files exist in the bundle, and the Files section lists every script and reference with a one-line description. References are one level deep — cross-links between overview.md and recommendations.md are peer links to files that contain their own content, not pointer chains.

Specificity

Concrete actions are named — "Reviews a PR, commit, range, or branch", "in a local HTML page whose comments post back to the PR as one GitHub review" — covering the review targets, the mechanism, and the outcome. Not a 5 because the actions are woven into one long sentence rather than comprehensively enumerated (capture of screenshots, reading guides, and re-review mechanics appear only implicitly), and not a 3 because it goes well beyond naming a domain with 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what it does ("Reviews a PR, commit, range, or branch as a feature first and code second, in a local HTML page whose comments post back to the PR as one GitHub review") and when to use it ("Use when the user asks to review a PR or commit, review the feature or shape of a change, or re-review a PR after new pushes") with concrete quoted trigger phrases — an exact match for the anchor-5 example pattern.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes natural user phrases verbatim — "review PR #123", "review this commit", "review the feature in PR #123", "re-review PR #123" — plus prose triggers like "review the feature or shape of a change" and "re-review a PR after new pushes". Not a 5 because the most common natural phrasing for this domain, "code review" (and "diff"/"look at this PR" variants), is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is differentiated by "as a feature first and code second, in a local HTML page" and "as one GitHub review", but the primary triggers — "review a PR or commit", "review PR #123", "review this commit" — are exactly what a user would say for a plain code review, so overlap with a closely related generic review skill is more than minor. Not a 4 because the core trigger collides head-on with the whole code-review domain; not a 2 because the feature-first/HTML-page/post-back mechanism and the "re-review" and "review the feature" triggers do set it apart.