The body is a lean routing notice — one heading plus two sentences and a task line — with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the "lean and efficient; every token earns its place" anchor.

It gives concrete, copy-paste-ready alternatives ("Use `$code-review` directly" and "`$plan --review`") rather than vague direction, satisfying the fully-executable-guidance anchor.

This is a simple single-purpose skill whose single action (do not invoke; route to the named alternative) is unambiguous, which the rubric allows to score 3 without a multi-step workflow.

At well under 50 lines with no need for external references, the single clear heading and self-contained notice meet the simple-skill allowance for a top score on progressive disclosure.

"Deprecated standalone review skill" names no concrete actions, only a vague classification. It does not list specific actions like the score-2/3 anchors require.

It gives only a weak "what" ("review skill") and no "when to use" clause — instead it states when not to use it, so both what and when are missing/very weak per the score-1 anchor.

"review" is a relevant natural keyword a user might say, but coverage is thin and missing common variations, matching the "some relevant keywords but missing common variations" anchor rather than the no-keyword anchor.

"review" is very generic and would conflict with related skills; the body itself redirects to $code-review and $plan --review, confirming the overlap risk described by the score-1 anchor.