The body is mostly efficient and does not explain git basics Claude already knows, but the opening 'Core Contract' prose overlaps with the intro value statement and the user-confirmation emphasis is restated multiple times, matching 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'. It is not a 3 because of this redundant framing prose, and not a 1 because the bulk is actionable and non-padded.

It gives fully executable git commands ('git worktree add -b <branch-name> .slim/worktrees/<slug> <base>', 'git worktree remove ...'), a complete JSON manifest schema, and exact copy-paste .gitignore/.ignore blocks, matching 'Fully executable code/commands; specific examples; copy-paste ready'. It is not a 2 because the placeholders are appropriate parameterization rather than pseudocode, and not below 3 because the commands are real and directly runnable.

It has a clear four-phase sequence, a pre-flight checklist, and explicit validation checkpoints (run tests + diff before integration, confirm clean state before removal), but lacks explicit error-recovery feedback loops for what to do when a check fails. Per the scoring note, missing feedback loops in destructive-operation contexts caps workflow_clarity at 2. It is not a 3 because no 'validate -> fix -> retry' loop is spelled out, and not a 1 because sequence and checkpoints are clearly present.

The body is well-organized into clear sections (Core Contract, Safety, four-phase Workflow, When to Use), but it is a ~170-line monolithic single file with no bundle files and no reference layer; the state-tracking JSON schema and ignore-file blocks are inline rather than split out. This matches 'Some structure but... content that should be separate is inline'. It is not a 3 because there is no well-signaled one-level-deep reference structure, and not a 1 because organization is clean with no nested/broken references.

It names the domain ('Git worktrees') and a single verb ('Manage'), but does not list multiple concrete actions such as add, remove, prune, or integrate; the anchor 'Names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' is the closest match. It is not a 3 because no series of specific actions is enumerated, and not a 1 because the domain is concretely named rather than abstract.

The 'what' is clearly stated ('Manage Git worktrees as OMO safe isolated coding lanes'), and the 'when' appears only as a loose 'for complex, risky, or parallel work' clause rather than an explicit 'Use when...' trigger. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2. It is not a 3 because the trigger guidance is implied rather than explicit, and not a 1 because both what and a rough when are present.

It includes the natural core term 'Git worktrees' and trigger phrases like 'complex, risky, or parallel work', but surrounding jargon ('OMO safe isolated coding lanes') and missing common variations ('parallel branches', 'isolated environment', 'experiment') match 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations'. It is not a 3 due to the unexplained 'OMO' acronym and thin variation coverage, and not a 1 because 'Git worktrees' is a term a user would naturally say.

'Git worktrees' is a specific, narrowly-scoped niche with a distinct trigger unlikely to be confused with other skills, matching 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; unlikely to conflict'. It is not a 2 because the topic is too specific to plausibly overlap with sibling skills, and not below 3 for the same reason.