Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence: no concepts Claude already knows are explained, and the output template earns its tokens as the core deliverable. The two short 'Why...' sections are borderline — they carry behavioral guidance (don't retroactively justify, score the dissent) but could be trimmed — matching 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the fully lean anchor of 5.

Actionability

Concrete guidance dominates: an explicit save path ('~/.claude/postmortems/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md'), a complete fill-in-the-blank record template covering every section, named inputs, and command-level routing. Gaps keep it below 5: no worked example showing a filled record, and no direction on where the 'Actual outcomes (metrics, events, customer signals)' should be sourced from.

Workflow Clarity

The process sequence (gather record → pull actuals → score criteria → audit assumptions → route by status) is only implicit in the output template's section order — there is no explicit step list. There are also no validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying the decision record actually contains pre-committed criteria before scoring), fitting 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' at 3 rather than 4.

Progressive Disclosure

A well-sectioned single-file skill: no bundle files exist, the ~55-line template is appropriately inline as the core content, and the Related section clearly signals one-level-deep links to sibling skills and agents. Minor gaps — mixed navigation styles ('${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/...' vs '../../...') and the two rationale sections could live in a reference if the file grows — keep it at 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Honest retrospective on an executed decision") and a couple of concrete actions ("scored against original assumptions and dissent"), matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor. Phrases like "Closes the strategic sprint loop" are abstract filler rather than concrete capabilities, so it does not reach the 'several specific actions' level of 4.

Completeness

It clearly answers both questions: what ("Honest retrospective on an executed decision, scored against original assumptions and dissent") and when ("Use when a decision hits its 90-day review checkpoint or its kill criteria trigger") with a concrete trigger example. This matches the anchor for explicitly answering both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit trigger terms — "90-day review checkpoint", "kill criteria trigger", plus the example "scoring last quarter's pricing change against its pre-committed success metrics" — are natural phrases a user of this pipeline would say, and "retrospective"/"post-mortem" cover the concept synonyms. A few common variations ("debrief", "what went wrong", "review the outcome") are missing, which keeps it below the comprehensive-coverage anchor of 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche (decision post-mortem at a scheduled checkpoint) with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Minor overlap risk exists with the noted sibling "/em:postmortem — adversarial single-decision post-mortem", which the description does not distinguish itself from, fitting the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor rather than 5.