Conciseness

The body explains nothing Claude already knows; virtually all prose is tool-specific gotcha handling (repo binding, worktree detection, stale index, partial/truncated flags) that earns its tokens. It falls short of score 5 because a few passages — the riskSharedAxes/group-mode paragraph and the long "Bind the repository first" qualification sentences — are convoluted and could be tightened or trimmed.

Actionability

Every step is copy-paste ready: exact MCP calls (`list_repos {}`, `impact({target: "validateUser", repo: "my-app", direction: "upstream"})`), exact CLI fallbacks (`node .gitnexus/run.cjs impact "X" --direction upstream --repo .`), a concrete fallback when run.cjs is missing (`npx gitnexus`), sample outputs, and a fully worked multi-repo example. Not below 5: no pseudocode or vague directions appear anywhere.

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is a numbered 0–4 sequence with a checklist, explicit validation checkpoints (bind repo before anything, confirm the diffed checkout, re-run on partial/truncated, stop on UNKNOWN until resolved), and feedback loops for error recovery ("If 'Index is stale' → run `node .gitnexus/run.cjs analyze`"). Not below 5: validation and recovery are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single file with no bundle directories (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) and clear, well-signaled sections (When to Use, Workflow, Checklist, Understanding Output, Risk Assessment, Tools, Example). It is not score 5 because at ~165 lines the deep edge-case material (worktree semantics, group-mode riskSharedAxes, unusedAxes) is dense inline content that a one-level-deep reference file would relieve; it is above score 3 because navigation is easy and nothing is buried.

Specificity

The description names one or two concrete capabilities — "know what will break if they change something" and "needs safety analysis before editing code" — but never names the domain mechanism (impact analysis, dependency graph, blast radius, processes), so coverage is not comprehensive. It is not score 4 because it lacks several specific actions; it is above score 2 because the actions it does give are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

Both what and when are present — "know what will break if they change something, or needs safety analysis before editing code" plus an explicit "Use when..." clause with concrete trigger examples. It falls short of score 5 because the capability statement has no standalone declarative form (e.g., "Finds callers and affected processes via impact analysis"); the what is embedded inside the when-clause, making it slightly weaker than the explicit both-parts anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural user phrasings — "Is it safe to change X?", "What depends on this?", "What will break?" — with good synonym coverage of the breakage/safety question space. It misses common variations such as "blast radius", "impact", "callers", or "usages", which a score-5 anchor would cover.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The safety/breakage triggers are fairly niche and unlikely to hijack unrelated skills, though "what will break" and "safety analysis before editing code" could overlap with code-review or testing skills. Minor overlap risk with closely related skills places this at score 4 rather than the clear-niche score 5.