Conciseness

The body is efficient — every section carries operational instructions (permissions, steps, gate criteria) with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimming is possible: the permission scope is restated across "Testing permission" ("It covers only the tests needed for this task... It also does not bypass...") and the intro, which keeps it below anchor 5's "every token earns its place".

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: named skills to invoke (`sol-loop`, `file-pr`, `babysit-pr`), named tools (`watch_pull_request`, `AskUserQuestion`, `request_user_input`), exact flags (`--force-with-lease`), and a merge-gate checklist. Minor gaps keep it below 5: git rebase/merge commands are described ("Rebase onto the latest default branch") rather than given, and "Merge with the method the repo uses" is necessarily open-ended.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: "Get proof for each fix before you push it", the merge-gate checklist, "When you cannot find a way to prove a change... Ask the user", and the fallback "If no question tool is available... leave the PR open and unmerged". This matches the anchor-5 pattern of sequence + explicit validation + error-recovery paths + checklist.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections (Testing permission, Steps, Proof, Merge gate, Asking the user) with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to sibling skills. Not 5: the skill is ~119 lines (past the under-50-line simple-skill exception) and self-contained with no bundle files, so denser sections like Proof or Merge gate could be split into reference files to slim the main body.

Specificity

The description states only "Trigger this if the user says 'full send'" — it names a precise trigger mechanism but describes zero concrete capabilities of the skill. Not 1 because the language is concrete and specific rather than abstract, but it falls below anchor 3, which requires 1-2 named actions; no action is ever mentioned.

Completeness

The "when" is explicit ("if the user says 'full send'") but the "what" is entirely absent — the description never says the skill completes work autonomously, merges PRs, or proves changes. This matches anchor 2 ("only 'when' is present without 'what'") exactly; not 3 because anchor 3 requires a clear 'what', and not 1 because the 'when' is explicit and unambiguous.

Trigger Term Quality

"full send" is exactly the phrase a user would naturally say to invoke this skill, so the keyword quality is high. Not 5 because there is only a single term with no variations or informal spellings (e.g., "fullsend", "go full send"); not 3 because the one trigger present is the exact, natural phrase rather than a generic stand-in.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger phrase "full send" is a distinctive slang expression that no other skill would plausibly claim, giving it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk. Anchor 4 ("minor overlap risk with closely related skills") does not fit better — the phrase is effectively unique among skill triggers.