Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what git, branches, or kebab-case are, and every table (type prefixes, examples) and rule directly serves the task. No padded or over-explanatory sections; not anchor 4 because there are no over-explanatory instances to trim.

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable with concrete commands ("gh api user --jq .login", "git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/<remote>/HEAD ... | sed ...", "git checkout -b <branch-name>") and a worked examples table. Anchor 4 rather than 5 because of minor gaps: the collision check is named but not given as a full invocation ("(`git show-ref`)" without arguments) and stash handling is delegated as "handle any uncommitted changes appropriately".

Workflow Clarity

The five-step sequence is clearly ordered with explicit checkpoints and error-recovery loops: auth failure fallback ("If the command fails... ask the user"), symbolic-ref fallback, detached-HEAD handling, pre-creation name-collision check, user confirmation before creating, and "On any failure, restore stashed changes if applicable and stop". This matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections (Steps 1-5, Examples, References) are well-organized and the single external link is clearly signaled, so navigation is easy. Anchor 4 rather than 5 because the ~100-line body keeps everything inline — the 12-row type table and examples table are candidates for a reference file — and the no-bundle single-file layout sits just above the size where a split would clearly not help.

Specificity

"Create a git branch following Sentry naming conventions" names the domain and one concrete action, but stops short of describing what the convention entails (e.g., the <username>/<type>/<description> prefix scheme or type classification). Anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') is the best fit; anchor 4 requires several specific actions listed, which a single-action description doesn't provide.

Completeness

It clearly answers both questions: the "what" ("Create a git branch following Sentry naming conventions") and an explicit "Use when asked to..." clause listing concrete trigger phrases. This matches anchor 5 ('clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'); anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific.

Trigger Term Quality

The description enumerates natural user phrasings with synonyms — "create a branch", "new branch", "start a branch", "make a branch", "switch to a new branch" — plus the situational trigger "when starting new work on the default branch". Coverage of natural terms is comprehensive; no meaningful phrasing a user would say is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Sentry-convention framing and branch-creation triggers give it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk. Not anchor 5 because "switch to a new branch" could fire on a plain branch-switch request (overlapping checkout/switch intent), a minor overlap with closely related operations.