Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — tables, commands, yaml snippets, checklists — with essentially no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (TDD is given as a 3-line rule, not a lecture). It is not 5 because a few tokens don't earn their place (the repeated 'costo, qwen capable' rationale column, a thin Output format section, and filler like 'vos NO interferís'); it is not 3 because there is no unnecessary explanation or padding that requires tightening.

Actionability

Most guidance is executable: the qwen path is a runnable heredoc + 'opencode run --prompt-file ... --model qwen-coder --max-iterations 50' command, ticket state updates are concrete yaml snippets, and Step 4 is a literal checklist. It is not 5 because the Agent({ ... }) spawn block is schematic rather than a copy-paste-ready call, Step 2C is a single line, and placeholders ({id}, T-{n}) require substitution; it is not 3 because real executable commands dominate over pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (verify T-{n}-result.md, quality gates verde, commit SHA in git log, push success) and genuine feedback loops (gap → ticket returns to tests-failing/building; ≥5 failed iterations or >30min hang → blocked + escalate), plus checklists and an anti-patterns section. This matches the top anchor; destructive/batch git operations all have their validation steps present, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: clear section headers, self-contained routing logic, and no nested or dead references (the bundle has no references/ scripts/ or assets/ directories, and every file the body names is a workflow artifact, not a skill bundle file). It is not 5 because the ~197-line body inlines the full qwen prompt template — content that would belong in a references/ file as the bundle grows — and the 5-anchor expects well-signaled one-level references or a simple <50-line skill; it is not 3 because organization and navigation are solid, not merely present.

Specificity

The description lists many concrete actions covering the full workflow: 'Toma 1 ticket de 04-tickets.yaml', 'Decide owner según owner_eligibility', 'invoca via Bash con prompt pre-cocido', 'spawna agent builder-{be,fe,agentic}', 'Corre /test-{backend,frontend} + Playwright + agentic evals', 'Push commit', 'Update ticket state'. This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; it is not 4 because the action list spans the entire lifecycle rather than having minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' is the full routing workflow (take ticket, decide owner, invoke/spawn dev, run tests, push, update state) and the 'when' is a literal trigger clause — 'Activa cuando user dice: /dev-team, tomá ticket T-N, implementá T-N, arrancá build'. This matches the top anchor with concrete trigger phrases; it is not 4 because the when-clause is explicit rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit trigger phrases are provided ('/dev-team', 'tomá ticket T-N', 'implementá T-N', 'arrancá build') including command and verb variations, giving good keyword coverage. It is not 5 because coverage is limited to Spanish/voseo forms and misses common synonyms (e.g. English variants, 'desarrollá', 'build T-N'); it is not 3 because the natural phrases users of this workflow would say are present, not merely relevant keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche (ticket routing within a project pipeline) with pattern-bound triggers ('/dev-team', 'T-N' ticket references), so conflict risk with other skills is minimal. It is not 4 because the T-N pattern and slash command make overlap with generic build/implement skills unlikely rather than just minor.