Conciseness

The body is directive with no concept explanations Claude already knows (e.g. '`git status`, `git diff`, and `git diff --cached` for uncommitted work' is stated without library tutorials). However, the assumption-labeling rule appears twice ('Label any detail not directly evidenced... as an assumption' in writer step 1 and 'Label inferred or assumed details inline as assumptions' in step 3), and the Execution contract partially restates the discipline the workflow already encodes — minor trims remain, so this fits score 4 ('efficient; minor instances... that could be trimmed') rather than 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete and executable: exact commands ('`git status`, `git diff`, and `git diff --cached`'), exact paths ('`context/plans/*.md`', '`context/handovers/{plan_name}-{task_id}.md`'), a concrete fallback pattern ('`handover-{YYYY-MM-DD-HHMMSS}.md`' with a 'T01'-style example), explicit reject rules, and named output layouts. Per the rubric's instruction-only-skill note, the absence of code is not penalized; this matches score 5's 'copy-paste ready commands; specific examples cover the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

Both modes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and error recovery: writer step 5 mandates 'validate the written file against the template's Completeness contract' before reporting success, loader steps 1-2 validate the path and completeness, blocked layouts handle each failure ('render the Loader blocked layout and stop'), and step 2 adds collision-safe fallback naming rather than overwriting. This matches score 5 ('clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery').

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview that delegates detail to two real, one-level-deep bundle files — 'Read `references/handover-template.md` before composing' and 'Render the **Writer success** layout from `references/output.md`' — both of which exist in the bundle, are clearly signaled at the point of use, and contain the schema/layouts they own, with no nested references. This matches score 5 ('clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split').

Specificity

The description names two concrete actions — 'Write a session handover document, or load one for continuation' — matching the score-3 anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' (like 'Processes PDF files and extracts content'). It is below score 4, which requires 'several specific actions', and above score 2, whose actions are 'minimal or generic' — these two actions are domain-specific.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (write or load a handover document) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance; 'for continuation' only weakly implies a use case. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3 ('has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'), below score 4 which requires both.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain keywords are present ('session handover', 'load', 'continuation') but common natural variations a user would actually say — 'handoff', 'resume a session', 'pick up where we left off', 'session summary' — are missing. This fits score 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') rather than score 4's 'good keyword coverage', since the total keyword set is very small.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Session handover' names a clear niche that is unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, with only minor overlap risk against closely related session-summary or planning skills — matching score 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'). It falls short of score 5, whose example includes explicit distinct trigger phrases, which this description lacks.