Conciseness

The body is operational and free of concept explanations Claude already knows, but guidance is repeated across sections: the `--output` upgrade procedure appears nearly verbatim in both the 'Output file' bullet and the 'unknown flag: --output' troubleshooting entry, and output-truncation advice is stated three times ('Prevent output truncation' bullet, the Output mode section, and the 'Avoid output truncation' gotcha). This matches the 3 anchor ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') — not 4, because the duplication is systematic rather than a couple of trimmable lines, and not 2, since there is no padding or beginner-level explanation.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready and cover the common cases: the base invocation `ocr review --audience agent --background "business context here" [user-args]`, a user-says-to-command table, concrete config commands (`ocr config set llm.url ...`), a complete rule.json example, and a dry-run (`ocr review --preview`). This matches the 5 anchor ('fully executable; copy-paste ready; specific examples cover the common cases'); the 4 anchor would leave minor gaps in the covered cases.

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow (Gather Business Context → Run Code Review → Report → Fix) is clearly sequenced, with a dedicated Validation section (exit code 0, comments generated, stderr warnings), a permission checkpoint before applying fixes, and a Troubleshooting section that provides explicit error-recovery loops (e.g. resume with `--resume <id>`, configure LLM then `ocr llm test`). This matches the 5 anchor ('clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'); the 4 anchor would leave minor validation gaps, which are absent. Note: fix application does include validation and a permission gate, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The single SKILL.md (~230 lines, no bundle files) is well-sectioned with clear headers, but content that would naturally live in separate reference files is all inline: the full Custom Review Rules guide with a rule.json schema, the Advanced Review Options flag catalog, and the detailed Troubleshooting procedures. This sits at the 3 anchor ('some structure but content that should be separate is inline') — not 4, because the inlined advanced material is substantial rather than a minor organization gap, and not 2, because section headers and the guidance to run `ocr review --help` do provide real structure and navigation.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions in third person — 'Performs AI-powered code review on Git changes', 'Produces line-level review comments', 'can automatically apply fixes' — and enumerates detectable issue types (bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance problems). This matches the 5 anchor ('multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage') and exceeds the 4 anchor, which allows minor coverage gaps; the only soft spot is the hedged 'With appropriate review rules, can detect various types of issues', which is a conditional rather than a gap.

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' ('Performs AI-powered code review... Produces line-level review comments and can automatically apply fixes') and 'when' via a concrete 'Use when the user asks to review code, review a pull request, review staged/unstaged changes, review a commit, or compare branches' clause. This matches the 5 anchor exactly (both what and when with concrete trigger phrases); the 4 anchor applies only when the 'when' is less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are well covered: 'review code', 'review a pull request', 'review staged/unstaged changes', 'review a commit', 'compare branches', 'code quality issues'. A few common variations are missing ('code review' as a noun phrase, 'PR', 'diff', 'review my changes'), so it sits at the 4 anchor ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than the 5 anchor's comprehensive synonym/extension coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming the `ocr` CLI and alibaba/open-code-review gives it a distinct identity, but the trigger phrases ('review code', 'review a pull request', 'review a commit') are exactly the phrases generic code-review skills trigger on, so it would compete with any general code-review skill in the same library. This lands at the 3 anchor ('somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills') — not 4, because the overlap is with the most common skill category rather than a minor edge case, and not 2, because the CLI identity and line-level-comment framing do distinguish it from document or generic review skills.