Conciseness

The ~44-line body is pure instruction with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows (no PR primer, no gh walkthrough); every token adds a convention or checkpoint Claude doesn't inherently know, e.g. "PR titles usually become commit messages, so follow the repository's title conventions" and the rate-limit fallback. This matches the anchor 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place' — the BAD/GOOD quotes are illustrative contrasts, not padding.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance is present: the REST fallback `gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls -f title=... -f head=... -f base=... -F body=@<file>`, BAD/GOOD title and description examples, and the attribution template `Created with <model> in <harness>.`. It stays below anchor 5 because the primary `gh pr create` invocation and the command for checking whether a PR already exists are left implicit — minor gaps rather than 'fully executable ... covers the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

A clear chronological sequence (check existing PR → review diff → title → description → attribution → secrets check → submit) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Before filing, check whether a PR for this branch already exists', 'Before submission, check the title, description, quotes, and attachments for secrets') and an error-recovery feedback loop ('If `gh pr create` fails because the GraphQL rate limit is used up, open it through REST'). This matches anchor 5; PR creation is not destructive/batch, so no cap applies, and anchor 4's 'minor validation gaps' understates the three explicit checks plus fallback.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so nothing needs externalizing; cross-references to sibling skills (`babysit-pr`, `leaving-pr-comments`) are clearly signaled exactly at the point of need ('If the user also asked to babysit it, continue with the `babysit-pr` skill'). Per the simple-skill guideline, this earns the top score with well-organized chronological content.

Specificity

"File a concise pull request" names exactly one concrete action; the description omits the other capabilities the body covers (title/description conventions, secrets check, submission mechanics). This matches anchor 3 ('Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') rather than anchor 4, which requires 'several specific actions', and the single action is concrete rather than generic, so it is above anchor 2.

Completeness

"File a concise pull request" explicitly states the what, and "Use when the user asks to file, open, or create a PR" gives an explicit when with concrete trigger phrases — the exact pattern of the anchor-5 example. Anchor 4's caveat ('when' could be more explicit or specific) does not apply, and both elements are stated rather than inferred.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when the user asks to file, open, or create a PR" covers the main verb phrasings users naturally say, and both "PR" and "pull request" appear. Common variants like "submit a PR" or "make a PR" are absent, so it falls just short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage but is clearly above anchor 3's partial keyword coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

PR creation is a clear niche, and the triggers "file, open, or create a PR" are distinct from neighboring PR tasks the body delegates to sibling skills (`babysit-pr`, `leaving-pr-comments`), so mis-triggering risk is minimal. This matches anchor 5 ('Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk') better than anchor 4, which presumes notable overlap with closely related skills.