Conciseness

The body is lean and free of concept explanations, but the schema rule is stated three times (step 2, step 3's "Add --schema <name> only if...", and the guardrail "Pass --schema if using a non-default workflow"). These repeated minor instances could be trimmed, matching the efficient-with-minor-overlap anchor of 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place 5.

Actionability

The skill gives copy-paste-ready commands (`openspec new change "<name>"`, `openspec status --change "<name>"`, `openspec instructions <first-artifact-id> --change "<name>"`, `openspec schemas --json`) plus exact AskUserQuestion wording, and explains how to derive the one placeholder from status output. This is fully executable instruction-only guidance covering the common cases, matching the 5 anchor rather than the minor-gaps 4.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-6 are clearly sequenced with a STOP checkpoint and guardrails for error conditions (invalid name, existing change), but there are no checks on command outcomes (e.g., what to do if `openspec new change` fails or status output is unexpected). This fits the clear-sequence-with-minor-validation-gaps anchor of 4; the 5 would require explicit validate-and-retry loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a short, single-purpose workflow with no bundle files and no need for external references, yet is organized into clear Input, Steps, Output, and Guardrails sections. Under the simple-skill guideline this well-organized structure earns the top score.

Specificity

"Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow" names the domain and one concrete action (starting a change), but lists no further actions (e.g., scaffolding, showing artifact status, fetching instructions). This matches the anchor for naming a domain with 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage; a 4 would require several specific actions listed.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both: what ("Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow") and when ("Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification with a structured step-by-step approach") with concrete trigger phrases. This clearly matches the top anchor rather than the 4, whose 'when' would be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases like "create a new feature, fix, or modification" are natural, but common variations and synonyms are missing (e.g., "add", "implement", "openspec change", "spec", "proposal"). Coverage is partial rather than the 'good keyword coverage with a few missing' of a 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'what' carves out a clear OpenSpec niche, but the 'when' clause ("wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification") is broad enough to overlap with general feature-development or fix workflows outside OpenSpec. It is somewhat specific yet could still collide with similar skills, fitting the 3 anchor better than the minor-overlap 4.