Conciseness

The body is efficient — dominated by exact commands, tables, and tool-specific facts rather than concepts Claude already knows. Minor trims remain: the sentence explaining the diff flags ('disable external diff programs, text conversion, and color') and the version pin 'v1.9.0', which is time-sensitive information not placed in a deprecated/old-patterns section.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact 'ocr delegate preview/rule' invocations, mode-specific 'git --no-pager diff --no-ext-diff --no-textconv --no-color' commands, a structured comment field table, concrete limits ('must not exceed 1 MiB', '8000 characters'), and an exact failure signature ('unknown flag: --format') with a fallback procedure. Commands are copy-paste ready and cover the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–7 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation and feedback loops for this batch operation: a mandatory per-file checklist ending in 'reviewed' or 'skipped with a concrete reason', Step 6 coverage verification ('total_files, reviewed_files, skipped_files, coverage_rate'), Git-failure recovery ('retry or record skipped... Check unexpectedly empty output against a fresh preview'), and dedicated recovery procedures for oversized background context and version incompatibility.

Progressive Disclosure

A single ~190-line file, well-sectioned (Workflow, Sub-commands Reference, Shared Flags, Gotchas, two troubleshooting subsections) with no nested references and nothing buried. The 50-line simple-skill exception does not apply at this length, and the flags table plus the two long troubleshooting subsections could plausibly live in a reference file, which keeps it at 'good structure, minor organization gaps' rather than a model split.

Specificity

Names several concrete actions — 'instructs the host agent to perform the code review itself, using OCR only for deterministic engineering: file selection and rule resolution' — tied to a specific tool. Falls short of 5 because it omits other workflow stages (diff acquisition, output formatting, coverage reporting) that the skill actually covers.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('Delegation mode for open-code-review (OCR)... file selection and rule resolution') and when ('Use when the host agent should drive the review'). The 'when' clause is present so the score-3 cap does not apply, but it describes an integration preference rather than concrete user-task triggers, keeping it below 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ('code review', 'delegation', 'OCR') but the trigger condition is architectural jargon — 'when the host agent should drive the review with its own LLM capabilities' — rather than phrases a user would naturally say, and common variations like 'review my changes/PR' are absent. Not 4 because natural-term coverage is genuinely incomplete, not just missing a few synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Delegation mode for open-code-review (OCR)' carves a clear niche anchored to a specific named CLI and a distinct operating mode, so it is unlikely to trigger for unrelated review skills. Not 4: the tool-specific framing leaves only minimal, not 'minor but real', overlap risk.