Conciseness

The body is efficient — concrete git commands with no concept explanations — but has minor trimmable padding: the long 'Reality' cells in the Common Rationalizations table and push-back guidance duplicated between 'Act on feedback' ('Push back if reviewer is wrong') and 'If reviewer wrong'. This matches 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than 5, where every token would earn its place.

Actionability

Concrete guidance exists (BASE_SHA/HEAD_SHA commands, placeholder list, worked example), but the central instruction — 'filling the template at [code-reviewer.md](code-reviewer.md)' — depends on a file that is not present anywhere in the bundle, so the dispatch step cannot be executed as written. This is 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details' rather than 4, since the gap is the skill's core artifact, not a minor one.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clearly numbered (get SHAs → dispatch reviewer → act on feedback) with explicit triage checkpoints ('Fix Critical issues immediately', 'Fix Important issues before proceeding', 'Note Minor issues for later') and disagreement handling. It falls short of 5 because the loop is not closed: after fixing Critical/Important issues there is no re-review step to verify the fixes.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good and the reference is clearly signaled as one-level-deep, but the referenced file 'code-reviewer.md' does not exist in the bundle (there are no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), leaving a broken navigation path to the skill's central template. This fits 'Some structure but could be better organized' — the disclosure chain fails at its only reference.

Specificity

"to verify work meets requirements" is a purpose statement rather than a concrete action, and the description never names what is actually done (dispatch a code-review subagent, review a diff). It matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; score 3 would require 1-2 concrete actions, which are absent.

Completeness

Both elements are explicitly present: 'when' is rich ("Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging") and 'what' is stated ("verify work meets requirements"), though the what is thin and never mentions code review. Anchor 3 does not fit because the when is explicit, not weakly implied; anchor 5 does not fit because the what lacks concrete capability statements.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers like "completing tasks", "implementing major features", and "before merging" are phrases users might naturally say, but the most natural trigger terms for this skill — 'code review', 'review my changes/diff' — are entirely missing. This fits 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than 4, since the primary keyword family is absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The task/feature/merge framing is somewhat distinctive, but "verify work meets requirements" with no mention of code review could overlap with testing, QA, and general verification skills. This is 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' rather than 4, where overlap risk would be confined to closely related skills.