Conciseness

The 47-line body is lean with no concept explanations: 'Reviewer agents are the only path for judging the code: do not add an inline review pass before or after them' and the resolver block carry only operational content. The 13-line bash snippet is justified by its 'canonical; keep byte-identical across skills' comment and is executable rather than padded.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: the store-resolver bash block is copy-paste ready, and directives are concrete ('Read workflows/agents.md and execute it end-to-end', 'read templates/review-report.md and follow its output contract exactly', '$ARGUMENTS (if absent, use the current branch's PR)'). The helm companion instructions specify exact filenames ('pr-{NUMBER}-review.data.json').

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear (take input → resolve canonical store → read and execute workflows/agents.md → follow the report template → run the companion), and correction verification is explicitly delegated ('Let workflows/agents.md own scope selection, reviewer dispatch, correction verification, aggregation, and publication'). However, the validation checkpoints themselves are not shown in this file, so it sits at anchor 4 ('most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than 5.

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a clear overview router with a Resources section signaling two one-level-deep references ('workflows/agents.md — PR resolution, validation, agent scopes, aggregation, and publication'; 'templates/review-report.md — canonical local and GitHub review format'). Content is appropriately split: dispatch logic, report format, and companion behavior each live in their own file, and the body is under 50 lines.

Specificity

The description lists a comprehensive pipeline of concrete actions: 'Reviews GitHub pull requests through specialist review agents, runs repository validation, verifies corrections, aggregates findings, and posts the result.' It also concretely specifies the risk-scaling policy ('code review alone for small or mechanical changes; code, seam, and simplification review for contracts, state, and security'), matching the anchor-5 example's breadth. Not score 4 because coverage of what the skill does has no gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is the full pipeline in sentence one plus the scaling policy in sentence two, and the 'when' is explicit with concrete triggers: 'Use when the operator asks to review a PR, re-review fixes, check whether a PR is ready to merge, run review agents, or invokes $prp-review.' This is a direct anchor-5 match.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases a user would actually say are comprehensively covered with synonyms: 'review a PR', 're-review fixes', 'check whether a PR is ready to merge', 'run review agents', plus both 'GitHub pull requests' and the explicit '$prp-review' invocation. This exceeds anchor 4 ('a few natural terms missing') — the common phrasings for this domain are all present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (multi-agent PR review with validation, correction verification, and aggregation) and the '$prp-review' trigger is distinct, but generic phrases like 'review a PR' and 'check whether a PR is ready to merge' could also plausibly match a general code-review skill — minor overlap risk with a closely related skill, i.e., anchor 4. Not 5 because PR-review-adjacent skills would compete for the same utterances; not 3 because the multi-agent pipeline and operator-scope framing set it apart from a plain code-review skill.