Conciseness

Lean and well-structured with no over-explanation of known concepts, but the junior-dev/plain-English register is stated three times ("written for a junior developer who has not been following along", "Write as if to a capable junior dev", "Same plain-English, junior-dev register") and the intro paragraph overlaps the Output contract. Matches anchor 4's 'minor instances that could be trimmed'; the redundancy keeps it below anchor 5.

Actionability

The output contract is fully executable instruction guidance: "Exactly two paragraphs. Not one, not three. No headers, no bullet points", explicit per-paragraph content assignments, and per-argument behavior for "more", "<topic>", and "more <topic>". Covers all common cases including the nothing-changed edge case, so anchor 5 applies.

Workflow Clarity

Single-purpose skill with an unambiguous contract and explicit edge-case handling ("If nothing was built or changed and no topic was given, say so in one sentence"), so the simple-skill exception applies. No destructive or batch operations, so the validation cap is irrelevant.

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines, no external references needed, and well-organized sections ("Output contract (default: no arguments)", "With arguments") with no bundle files to reference. Per the guideline, a short single-purpose skill with well-organized sections scores 5.

Specificity

Names several concrete behaviors — "Explain what was just implemented in this conversation in plain English", "Default output is exactly two paragraphs", "the argument 'more' gives a longer, detailed version" — in third person, with minor coverage gaps (the topic argument is absent from the description). It exceeds anchor 3's 1-2 actions but isn't comprehensive enough for anchor 5.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and specific, but the only when-guidance is the negative clause "Not for questions about how existing code works when nothing was changed in this conversation" — an exclusion rather than a 'Use when...' trigger, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains some genuinely natural terms ("Explain", "plain English", "more") but misses common variations users would say such as "what did you just do" or "summarize the change". Matches anchor 3's 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations', not 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"what was just implemented in this conversation" plus the explicit negative boundary carves out a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against generic explain/summarize skills. Lacks the distinct positive triggers of anchor 5.