Conciseness

The body is information-dense and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what git, impact analysis, or a worktree is — and all caveats are tool-specific (MCP default-repo policy, worktree auto-detection, partial/truncated flags) so they earn their tokens. Not a 5 because the same material is restated across the Workflow, Checklist, Tools, and Example sections (the CLI fallback 'node .gitnexus/run.cjs ...' is repeated verbatim four-plus times, and repo/worktree identity echoing recurs), which could be tightened; not a 3 because none of it is explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

It gives copy-paste-ready, fully parameterized tool calls (e.g. impact({target: "validateUser", repo: "my-app", direction: "upstream", minConfidence: 0.8, maxDepth: 3})) plus executable CLI fallbacks (node .gitnexus/run.cjs impact "X" --direction upstream --repo .) and a worked example showing expected output. Not a 4 because the common cases are covered with concrete, executable commands rather than guidance with minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered workflow (0-4) with a parallel checklist and explicit validation gates — bind repo identity, 'warn on HIGH/CRITICAL and stop on UNKNOWN', 'Confirm the checkout you edited is the checkout that was diffed' — plus feedback loops for recovery (stale index → run analyze; partial/truncated → re-run rather than tick the check). Not a 4 because validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops are explicit, not merely mostly present. The destructive/batch cap does not apply since validation is thorough.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections (When to Use, Bind the repository first, Workflow, Checklist, Understanding Output, Risk Assessment, Tools, Example) and self-contained with no nested or buried references; the only inline references are runtime URIs (gitnexus://repo/{name}/processes) and CLI commands, not bundle files. Not a 5 because there are no one-level-deep reference files and the single file inlines material (detailed tool params, risk tables) that, at ~165 lines, could arguably be split out; not a 3 because structure is clear and content is appropriately placed, not a wall of text with buried references.

Specificity

It states the domain and one to two actions — 'needs safety analysis before editing code' and 'know what will break if they change something' — but these are intent-level descriptions rather than a list of several concrete capabilities, so it sits at 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions'. Not a 4 because it does not enumerate several specific concrete actions; not a 2 because the actions are concrete enough to go beyond naming the domain. Voice is third person ('the user wants'), so no voice penalty applies.

Completeness

It has an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases and states the capability (determine what will break / perform pre-edit safety analysis), explicitly answering both what and when. Not a 4 because the 'when' is concrete with quoted example triggers rather than merely present-and-could-be-more-specific.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes exactly the natural phrases a user would say — 'Is it safe to change X?', 'What depends on this?', 'What will break?' — alongside 'safety analysis before editing code', giving comprehensive coverage of natural trigger terms. Not a 4 because the example phrases are precisely the colloquial triggers users voice, not just good keyword coverage with a few missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — pre-edit breakage/blast-radius safety analysis — with distinct triggers ('Is it safe to change X?', 'What depends on this?', 'What will break?') that are unlikely to fire for general code-review or refactoring skills. Not a 4 because the breakage/safety intent is specific enough to carry minimal overlap risk rather than merely 'mostly distinct'.