Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative throughout — "Inspect staged, unstaged, and untracked changes. Preserve unrelated work in every state" — with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (nothing about what Git or commits are). Every sentence encodes a rule or constraint; even the one explanatory aside ("Commit subjects often become changelog entries or PR titles") justifies a rule rather than padding, so it matches the 'every token earns its place' anchor rather than the minor-trimming anchor at 4.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: a Good/Bad subject example pair, exact rules ("Never add AI attribution... or `Co-Authored-By: Claude`"), and a defined output ("Return the commit hash, message, committed scope, and any remaining changes"). It falls short of anchor 5 because no literal commands (e.g. `git status`, `git commit`) or copy-paste-ready snippets are given — an instruction-only skill is not penalized for lacking code, but the concrete-example coverage stops just short of the common cases anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear and ordered — infer target → inspect all three change states → separate unrelated work ("If intended and unrelated changes cannot be separated safely, stop and ask") → write message → "Stage and commit only the intended work" → explicit verification ("Verify the resulting commit contains every intended change, excludes unrelated changes, and leaves the remaining worktree state untouched") → report hash. Error-recovery checkpoints (stop-and-ask) and a post-commit validation step are both explicit, matching the anchor with validation steps and feedback loops; the no-validation cap at 3 does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple, single-purpose skill well under 50 lines with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and no external content needed. It is organized into well-labeled sections (Scope, Message, Commit and verify) with no inlined content that belongs elsewhere, which per the rubric's simple-skill guideline earns the top score on well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

"Creates Git commits for completed work" names the domain (Git commits) with one concrete action, but does not enumerate the fuller capability set (message writing, staged/unstaged inspection, focused splitting, verification), so it matches the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensiveness rather than the several-action anchors at 4-5.

Completeness

It explicitly answers what ("Creates Git commits for completed work") and when with four concrete trigger clauses ("Always use when committing changes... when another PRP workflow reaches its commit step, or when the user invokes $prp-commit"), matching the anchor requiring both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases. It is not anchor 4 because the when-clause is more explicit and enumerated than that anchor allows.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are well covered: "committing changes", "asks to commit the work", "reaches its commit step", "invokes $prp-commit" — all phrasings a user would plausibly say. A few natural variations (e.g. "make a commit", "save/check in changes") are missing, which places it at good-but-not-comprehensive coverage rather than the synonym-complete anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The PRP-scoped triggers ("when another PRP workflow reaches its commit step, or when the user invokes $prp-commit") carve out a clear niche, but the broad "Always use when committing changes" clause could overlap with generic commit-message or git-hygiene skills, giving minor overlap risk rather than minimal conflict.