Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: a two-line rationale, one executable checkpoint command, three one-line rollback commands, and two rules. Nothing explains git basics, and every token earns its place — a clean match for anchor 5; anchor 4 would require noticeable over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

All guidance is copy-paste executable: `git add -A && git commit -m "checkpoint: before <short description>" --no-verify`, `git rev-parse HEAD`, `git checkout -- <file>`, `git reset --hard HEAD`, and `git reset --hard <checkpoint-hash>` cover the common cases exactly, matching anchor 5. It is not anchor 4 because there are no gaps in the commands themselves.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (checkpoint → record hash → roll back on failure → retry differently) is clear, but the workflow's core operations are destructive (`git reset --hard` discards all uncommitted changes) and there are no validation or verification steps — e.g., confirming the checkpoint commit succeeded, checking `git status`/stash for work worth keeping before a hard reset, or verifying the tree state after rollback. Per the rubric, missing validation in destructive-operation workflows caps this at 3, overriding the simple-skill exception.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a sub-50-line single-purpose skill with no external references needed, and the content is organized into clear headed sections (Checkpoint, Roll back, Rules) with nothing that belongs in a separate file. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, well-organized sections alone earn anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("git as a safety net") and lists two concrete, conditioned actions — "create a checkpoint commit before risky or large changes" and "roll back cleanly if a change makes things worse" — which fully covers this skill's scope with only minor gaps (e.g., no mention of discarding uncommitted changes). It fits anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) better than anchor 3, whose example covers only 1-2 actions without conditions, and better than anchor 5, which expects a broader multi-action catalog.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("create a checkpoint commit... and roll back cleanly") and when ("Use before multi-file refactors", plus "before risky or large changes") with concrete trigger phrases. This matches anchor 5's pattern of a clear what followed by an explicit 'Use when...' clause; anchor 4's example has a vaguer, less conditioned 'when'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases include "risky or large changes", "multi-file refactors", "roll back", and "checkpoint commit" — terms a user would plausibly say. It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms like "undo", "revert", or "snapshot" are missing, but it is well above anchor 3's level of missing common variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The checkpoint/rollback safety-net niche is fairly distinct with its own triggers, but the broad use of "git" creates minor overlap risk with other git-related skills (commit messages, PR workflows). It is clearly above anchor 3 (overlap with similar skills) but not the fully minimal-conflict profile of anchor 5.