Conciseness

The body is a lean procedural document with concrete commands and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not a 5 because the Guardrails section restate content already specified in steps (e.g. 'Always prompt for change selection if not provided' repeats step 1's IMPORTANT note; 'If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment...' repeats step 4); not a 3-adjacent lower score because the redundancy is minor and the rest is efficient.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: concrete commands ('openspec list --json', 'openspec status --change "<name>" --json', 'mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive', 'mv openspec/changes/<name> ...'), concrete paths, parsed JSON fields, and a copy-paste output template. Not a 5 because step 4's delta-spec comparison ('Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec... Determine what changes would be applied') is high-level direction with no concrete comparison method or command.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints: artifact status check, task-file check, user confirmations via AskUserQuestion, and a pre-move existence check with defined failure handling ('Fail with error, suggest renaming'). Not a 5 because there are minor gaps — no verification that the 'mv' succeeded, and the archive proceeds regardless of whether the delegated sync actually succeeded.

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained skill file, clearly sectioned (Input, Steps, Output On Success, Guardrails) with easy navigation and no inlined content that belongs in a separate file. Sync execution is properly delegated to the openspec-sync-specs skill — a well-signaled one-level-deep reference — and no bundle files exist to score against, so nothing is buried or nested.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('completed change in the experimental workflow') and one concrete action ('Archive'), matching the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — it omits the skill's other capabilities like completion checking, delta-spec sync assessment, and summary reporting. Not a 2 because 'archive a completed change' is a concrete action rather than generic filler; not a 4 because only one action is listed.

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: the what ('Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow') and an explicit when ('Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete'). Not a 5 because the when-clause largely restates the what instead of adding concrete trigger variations or context; not a 3 because the 'when' is explicitly stated, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present — 'archive', 'finalize', 'completed change', 'after implementation is complete' — giving good keyword coverage a user would plausibly say. Not a 5 because common synonyms ('close out', 'wrap up', 'clean up a change') and the openspec/domain-specific vocabulary are missing; not a 3 because multiple relevant natural terms are covered, not just a domain label.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche (archiving completed changes in a specific experimental workflow) with triggers ('archive', 'finalize') that are distinct from sibling skills like sync or status. Not a 5 because 'experimental workflow' is unnamed relative to openspec, leaving minor overlap risk with generic archiving requests; not a 3 because it is more specific than the 'could still overlap with similar skills' anchor.