Conciseness

The body is ~25 lean lines where every token is non-obvious operational detail (run command, path rules, quoting, base/diff-mode semantics, closed-session handling) with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Matches the anchor 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place' — not the score-4 anchor since there are no over-explanation instances to trim.

Actionability

Commands are fully executable and copy-paste ready ('PLANNOTATOR_ORIGIN=kiro-cli plannotator review', with a PR URL, with '../feature-worktree', with --base/--diff-type), covering the common cases with a concrete example path. Matches the anchor 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases' rather than 4, which reserves room for minor gaps like unspecified valid --diff-type values.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-task skill whose one action (run the review, then address returned feedback) is unambiguous, and it includes an explicit conditional checkpoint for the no-feedback case ('Do not begin any work: closing the session is not approval') with the exact expected output string. The simple-skill exception applies and no destructive/batch cap is triggered, so it exceeds the score-4 anchor's 'minor validation gaps'.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is well organized in a logical flow (basic run, target variations, base/diff options, edge case), so the under-50-lines guideline yields a 5. No bundle files exist to reference, and the score-4 anchor's 'minor organization gaps' do not apply.

Specificity

It names the domain ('Plannotator's browser-based code review UI') and two actions ('Open... UI and address the returned feedback'), matching the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It is not a 4 because 'address the returned feedback' is generic and no further specific capabilities are listed.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (open the review UI, address returned feedback), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. This exactly matches the anchor 'Has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied' and is below 4, which requires both what and when.

Trigger Term Quality

'code review' is a relevant natural keyword anchored by the product name 'Plannotator', but common variations and synonyms users would say (review my changes, PR review, review feedback, code review session) are missing. Fits the anchor 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than 4's 'Good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The product-specific name 'Plannotator' establishes a clear niche, but the generic 'code review' action carries minor overlap risk with closely related review skills, fitting the anchor 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. It is above 3 because the product anchor makes mis-triggering for unrelated skills unlikely, but short of 5's distinct comprehensive triggers.