Conciseness

Sections are mostly efficient, but the closing 'When to Use' line ('applicable to execute the workflow...described in the overview') is tautological fluff and 'When to Request Review' overlaps with 'Integration with Workflows', matching 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened.'

Actionability

It gives executable git commands (`git rev-parse HEAD~1`, `git rev-parse HEAD`), named template placeholders, and a filled example, but the subagent dispatch itself is described abstractly rather than as a copy-paste command, matching 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps.'

Workflow Clarity

A clear 3-step sequence (get SHAs, dispatch, act on feedback) is paired with a Critical/Important/Minor triage checkpoint and push-back guidance, matching 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps.' Not 5 because checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit validate-then-proceed steps.

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-sectioned with a one-level reference to `code-reviewer.md`, but no bundle files exist to verify that reference and the example/red-flags material is inlined, matching 'Some structure...references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline.'

Specificity

The only 'what' is the generic action 'verify work meets requirements'; no concrete actions (e.g., review diffs, dispatch a reviewer subagent) are named, matching 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic.' Not 3 because the named action is abstract rather than concrete.

Completeness

Both 'what' (verify work meets requirements) and 'when' (tasks, major features, before merging) are present with an explicit 'Use when...' clause; the when is concrete but the what is vague, matching 'Has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific.' Not 5 because the what lacks concrete trigger phrases; not 3 because the explicit Use when clause keeps it uncapped.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural phrases like 'completing tasks' and 'before merging' but omits the most natural terms users say ('review', 'code review', 'check my work'), matching 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms.'

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Verify work meets requirements' is broad and could overlap with testing/QA skills, and no marker like 'code review' or 'subagent' narrows the niche, matching 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills.' Not 4 because nothing distinguishes it from related verification skills.