Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no explanation of what git, worktrees, or PRs are; every section is operational ('Run the project's full test suite', 'git worktree remove "$WORKTREE_PATH"', 'Present the menu exactly as written'). Comments in the code blocks carry sequencing rationale ('Capture now, while still inside the workspace — Step 5 changes directory'), and the 'Common Rationalizations' table maps one line per real failure mode. This matches anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; every token earns its place') rather than 4, where noticeable trimmable explanations would remain.

Actionability

Nearly everything is executable: concrete detection commands ('git rev-parse --git-common-dir'), copy-paste merge/push/delete sequences, verbatim menus, and a refusal-handling flow with a status command. It falls just short of anchor 5 ('fully executable; specific examples cover the common cases') because two paths stay generic: PR creation is delegated to 'the forge's tooling — its CLI if one is available, or the creation URL' without a concrete example command, and the merged-result verification is the literal placeholder '<test command>'. Comfortably above anchor 3, since the guidance is real commands, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The six steps are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints at every risky point: tests must pass before the menu ('the menu comes after a green suite'), the merged result must be green before any cleanup ('Once the merged result is green'), discard requires a typed confirmation ('Type \'discard\' to confirm'), and worktree removal refusal triggers a show-and-ask loop with three concrete recovery options. This matches anchor 5 ('explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery') — the destructive-operation cap of 3 does not apply because validation and confirmation are pervasive.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the skill needs none: every part of the body is operational content used on each invocation (state detection table, menus, cleanup rules, quick-reference table), so nothing belongs in a separate reference file. The single file is well-sectioned with a clear overview line ('Verify tests → Detect environment → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up') and a Quick Reference table for navigation, with zero nested or buried references. This satisfies anchor 5's 'easy navigation / content appropriately split' — here, appropriately split means one self-contained file — and the rubric's simple-skill exception confirms well-organized sections with no external references can score 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('decide how to integrate the work' after 'implementation is complete, all tests pass') and one concrete action — the integration decision — but never enumerates the skill's actual capabilities (merge locally, push and create a PR, preserve the branch, worktree cleanup). It matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') rather than 4, which expects 'several specific actions', and rather than 2, since it is not generic — the integration-decision action is concrete and domain-bound.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the 'when' is explicit ('Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass...') and the 'what' is stated ('decide how to integrate the work'). It sits at anchor 4 ('has both what and when; one could be more explicit') because the 'what' is thin — it names the decision but not the options (merge / PR / keep) or cleanup. Not 5, which requires concrete capabilities alongside concrete trigger phrases; not 3, because the 'Use when' clause is explicit rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like 'implementation is complete, all tests pass' are natural trigger conditions, but the description omits the most common words a user would actually say in this moment: 'merge', 'pull request', 'PR', 'branch', 'finish the branch'. This fits anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') better than 4 ('good keyword coverage'), because the missing terms are central, not peripheral.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger is a clear niche — the post-implementation, green-suite integration decision — so it is 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' (anchor 4), e.g. generic git or PR-creation skills that could also fire on 'integrate'. Not 5 because the description lacks the discriminating vocabulary ('branch', 'merge', 'pull request') that would make the niche unambiguous; not 3 because the completion-plus-green-tests condition is far more specific than 'works with document files'-level overlap.