Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — tables for tiers, the operation family, and the agent map carry the content with no tutorials on TDD or commits — but the delegation point is repeated ("thin wrappers. They do not re-implement", the invoke-through-wrapper blockquote, "When to Use", and "Each phase delegates — it does not do the work inline"), which is trimmable padding below the every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: concrete tier thresholds ("1 file / 1 function", "2–5 files"), specific agents and commands (`gh search repos`, `/code-review`, `/gan-build "<brief>" --skip-planner`) and per-tier phase masks; minor gaps remain, e.g., the `task_list` format the Implement loop consumes and concrete values for `--max-iterations` / `--pass-threshold` are left unspecified.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0–6 are clearly sequenced with an explicit per-tier mask table, two validation checkpoints (GATE 1 after Plan, GATE 2 before Commit), error-recovery fallbacks (`build-error-resolver` / `/build-fix` on build breaks, CRITICAL/HIGH findings must be resolved before Gate 2), and a closing verification checklist — matching the full anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so this rests on body structure: sections are clear and well-ordered, and external references (`rules/common/development-workflow.md`, `rules/common/security.md`, `rules/common/testing.md`, the repo's `CLAUDE.md`) are one level deep and clearly signaled; at ~105 lines with the wrapper table and phase detail inlined, it falls just short of the ideally-split anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete capabilities — "the gated Research-Plan-TDD-Review-Commit pipeline, size classifier, agent and command map, and two human gates (plan approval, commit confirmation)" — going well beyond domain-naming (anchor 3) but describing machinery/components rather than the multiple concrete actions of anchor 5, leaving minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both what and when are explicit: what is "Shared orchestration engine behind the orch-* skill family" with its named components, and when is stated twice concretely — "Use indirectly via orch-add-feature, …, or orch-build-mvp; read directly only when adding an orch operation or tuning shared phases" — matching the clear-what-plus-explicit-concrete-when anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural operation terms appear throughout ("orch-add-feature, orch-fix-defect, orch-change-feature, orch-refine-code, or orch-build-mvp", plus "adding an orch operation", "tuning shared phases"), giving good keyword coverage; a few common user phrasings (e.g., "refactor", "new feature", "MVP") exist only inside skill names, so it is not the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (shared engine delegated to by five named wrapper skills) and explicitly steers usage away from itself ("read directly only when adding an orch operation or tuning shared phases"), so risk of triggering in place of a generic plan/review skill is minimal.