Conciseness

The ~38-line body is lean with zero concept explanation: a copy-paste output template, a five-item detection list, five terse routing rules, and a substantive untrusted-input policy. Every token earns its place; not 4 because there are no over-explanations to trim (the safety block is load-bearing for an autonomous loop that ingests PR/issue text).

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance: an exact output template (file:line, risk/effort enums, four loop-action choices), named detection targets, and routing rules ("Large refactors → ticket", "Medium+ risk → escalate-human", 7-day window). Not 5 due to minor gaps: the "state" file is referenced but never defined, no command for enumerating recent merges, and no rule for when to choose minimal-fix vs. skip.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (enumerate merges → scan each for listed items → emit per-merge report → route action) is coherent but only implicit via section organization, and checkpoints are missing or implicit — e.g. "introduced in merge" states a filter without any method to verify it, and there is no verification step before reporting (confirming a doc link is actually broken). Not 4 because most checkpoints are absent rather than minor gaps; the read-only nature of the scan keeps it above level 2.

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with no external content needed; well-organized sections (output format, detection list, rules, safety policy) with the one external pointer being a clearly signaled background link. Per the simple-skill scoring note, this earns 5 with just well-organized sections; no bundle files exist, so no navigation burden applies.

Specificity

Names the domain ("recent merges to main", "follow-up cleanup") and lists several concrete scan targets ("TODOs, deprecations, broken doc links, stale flags"). Fits anchor 4 — several specific actions with minor gaps (body also covers unused imports/dead code and the report format, which the description omits); not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive, and clearly above anchor 3's 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Both parts present: a clear "what" ("Scan recent merges to main for follow-up cleanup: TODOs, deprecations, broken doc links, stale flags") and an explicit "when" ("Use in post-merge cleanup loops"). Not 5 because the "when" is loop-oriented rather than concrete user trigger phrases (no "when the user mentions merged PRs / TODOs / flags ready for removal"); comfortably above anchor 3 since the Use clause is present and explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "merges to main", "post-merge cleanup", "TODOs", "deprecations", "stale flags", "broken doc links", "follow-up" — phrases a user would plausibly say. Not 5: misses common synonyms and variations such as "PRs", "pull requests", "merged PRs"; not 3 because coverage goes well beyond a single generic keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (post-merge scanning of main for cleanup follow-ups) with mostly distinct triggers. Minor overlap risk: generic requests like "clean up TODOs" or code-review/cleanup skills could also match; not 5, but well above anchor 3's vague overlap with similar skills.