Conciseness

The body is dense and prescriptive throughout — git worktree mechanics are given as commands with no explanation of what a worktree is, and the template is shown rather than described. Minor redundancy keeps it below anchor 5: the explicit-request gating appears in both the intro ('Enter this workflow only on an explicit user request') and a standalone paragraph, and the merge-confirmation rule is stated twice in Finish ('Do not auto-finish: confirm with the user before any irreversible action' and 'the merge always needs its own confirmation'). This fits anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed'), not anchor 3, since there is no padding or concept teaching.

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready commands and templates throughout: 'Run `git check-ignore -q "$path"`... Then run `git worktree add "$path" -b "$branch" "$base"`', concrete dependency modes ('bun ci', 'uv sync --frozen'), a complete fill-in spec template with frontmatter, and exact Question-tool option structures. Even judgment-based sections give precise structures (the reviewer-provision list and the three required review conclusions), matching anchor 5's 'fully executable... specific examples cover the common cases' for an instruction-only skill.

Workflow Clarity

The full sequence is explicit ('grill → workspace → spec → implement → verify → review → finalize → finish') with decision routing in Step 0 ('Fully constrained mechanical change... → skip Grill and Spec'), explicit validation ('Verification and review are strictly sequential... Do not substitute prior output or a subagent report for fresh evidence'), error-recovery loops ('After two failed fixes, stop patching and re-derive the cause'; 'Fix critical findings, re-verify, and re-review affected areas'), non-convergence stop conditions, and destructive-action gating. This matches anchor 5's 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so this is a deliberately self-contained single file ('One skill load, no internal skill hand-offs') with clear per-phase section headers and no nested references. At ~200 lines it exceeds the under-50-lines exception that would allow a 5 without references, and material like the spec template, amendment rules, and worktree mechanics could be split into reference files — fitting anchor 4 ('good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps') rather than anchor 5, and clearly above anchor 3 since nothing is buried or poorly signaled.

Specificity

Quotes several concrete capabilities: 'multi-step feature work, bug fixes, or refactors', 'a feature document should carry design + tasks + delivery evidence', and 'independent review before merge'. Phrases like 'where requirements need to settle' stay somewhat abstract, so it matches anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps') rather than anchor 5's comprehensive, fully concrete action list.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ('a feature document should carry design + tasks + delivery evidence, and the change deserves independent review before merge') and when ('Use it only when the user explicitly requests this workflow, whether with /compose-next, by name, or in any other clear natural language'), plus explicit exclusions ('Not for one-shot edits, single-file tweaks, or answering questions'). This matches anchor 5's 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'; anchor 4's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'feature work', 'bug fixes', 'refactors', 'feature document', 'review before merge', and the explicit '/compose-next' trigger. It lacks common synonyms a user might say ('spec', 'design doc', 'workflow', 'orchestration'), matching anchor 4 ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage, and clearly above anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The gating rule 'Use it only when the user explicitly requests this workflow... do not infer the request from task complexity alone' plus the explicit exclusion list gives it a clear niche with near-zero accidental-trigger risk, matching anchor 5. Although 'bug fixes' and 'refactors' are broad domains, the explicit-consent requirement removes the overlap risk that would place it at anchor 4.