Conciseness

Lean and efficient: no explanation of what git, commits, or Conventional Commits are — it only supplies what Claude would not already know (the type table with decision criteria like "Empty files and stubs don't count", the 72-char rule, scope guidance). Every section and line earns its place; nothing is padded. Not 4: there are no instances of over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

Concrete and executable: exact command "git diff --cached", explicit format template "<type>(<optional scope>): <subject>", measurable rules (imperative mood, lowercase, no trailing period, 72 chars), and a full decision table. Not 5: there is no worked example of an input change and its resulting commit message (e.g., "fix(api): drop trailing slash on redirect"), which the format rules would otherwise leave unshown; not 3: the guidance is fully concrete and directly executable, with only that minor gap.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step numbered sequence is unambiguous, includes decision guidance for the ambiguous case ("If changes are mixed, pick the type that covers all of them, not the largest file"), and an explicit safety boundary ("Do not commit, just suggest it to the user"). The operation is non-destructive (suggestion-only), so the validation-cap guideline does not apply; no feedback loop is needed since nothing is modified. Not 4: there are no gaps — edge cases and the stopping point are both explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references (none exist in the bundle), and per the rubric's simple-skill guideline it qualifies for 5 with well-organized sections. Sections ("When you're triggered", "What to do", "Type table", "Subject line rules") are clear, appropriately sized, and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined. Not 4: structure and placement are fully appropriate at this scale.

Specificity

"Reads the staged diff, picks the Conventional Commits type (feat, fix, refactor, docs, test, perf, chore), and writes an imperative subject of at most 72 characters, adding a body only for breaking changes, migrations or security fixes" — multiple specific concrete actions covering the full workflow (read diff, classify type, write subject, conditional body) with a measurable constraint (72 chars). Verbs are third person ('Reads', 'picks', 'writes'), so no voice penalty applies. Not 4: coverage is comprehensive with no gaps; every step of the task is named explicitly.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — "Reads the staged diff, picks the Conventional Commits type... writes an imperative subject of at most 72 characters, adding a body only for breaking changes, migrations or security fixes"; and when — "Use when the user asks for a commit message or wants help summarizing staged changes, e.g. 'write a commit' or 'git commit message'" with concrete quoted trigger phrases. Matches the 5 anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say: "asks for a commit message", "summarizing staged changes", with quoted examples "write a commit" and "git commit message". Not 5: a few common variations are missing (e.g., "draft a commit message", "help me commit", "summarize my diff/changes"); not 3: quoted example triggers plus the two main phrasing families give good, not just 'some relevant', keyword coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (Conventional Commits message generation from staged diffs) with distinct triggers that would not fire for unrelated skills; it is closely comparable to a listed good_overall_example ("Generate descriptive commit messages by analyzing git diffs. Use when the user asks for help writing commit messages..."). Minimal conflict risk.