Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative throughout — e.g. "Pin the approved live base and record the ordered PR heads", "Keep stdout/stderr, exits, signals, versions and identities", "never use git stash" — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every line states a rule or constraint, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor; it is not the level-4 case because there are no over-explanations to trim.

Actionability

Some concrete guidance exists — "Run `scripts/quality/check-skill-contract.mjs`", "one owned branch and worktree under `.claude/worktrees/`", "`gh pr merge --match-head-commit` guards the head only" — but most steps stop short of executable detail ("Resolve each selected PR's open/draft state" and "Run the applicable static profile" name no commands), so key execution details are missing. It is above level 2 (it is more than high-level hints: specific paths, flags, and artifacts are given) but below level 4 because the majority of operations lack concrete commands or examples.

Workflow Clarity

Five explicitly sequenced phases each end with a validation checkpoint ("Completion: selected scope, target, ownership and permitted actions are explicit") and error-recovery feedback loops are pervasive: "A changed identity returns the item to validation", "a later PASS does not erase an earlier required FAIL", and section 5's re-validation of the resulting base before the next landing. This satisfies the batch-operation validation requirement and matches the anchor with explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists; no minor gaps are evident.

Progressive Disclosure

The body opens by delegating to clearly signaled references ("Read `../_shared/base-green.md`, `../_shared/validation-gate.md` and `../_shared/merge-gates.md`") and sections are well organized, but none of the referenced files exist in this skill's bundle — there is no `references/`, `scripts/`, or `assets/` directory, and `scripts/quality/check-skill-contract.mjs` plus the `../_shared/` files resolve outside the skill and cannot be verified. This falls short of level 4 ('minor organization gaps') because the skill's core protocol depends on dangling, unverifiable paths, yet stays above level 2 because references are explicit and the inline content is structured.

Specificity

The description names the domain and its core actions — "Prepare and merge an owner-selected PR batch" — but "with contributor credit and exact-candidate admission" reads as constraints/qualifiers rather than additional actions, leaving roughly two concrete actions total. This matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; it is below level 4 ('lists several specific actions') because the second sentence adds caveats rather than more actions.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' is "Prepare and merge an owner-selected PR batch with contributor credit and exact-candidate admission" and the 'when' is the concrete trigger "Use for a pasted PR list". This matches the anchor 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'; it exceeds level 4 because the when-clause is explicit and specific, not merely implied or generic.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger vocabulary is present: "merge", "PR batch", "pasted PR list", and "landing" — phrases a user asking for this skill would plausibly say ("merge this batch of PRs"). Coverage is good but a few natural terms are missing ("pull request" spelled out, "batch merge", "land these PRs"), so it sits at level 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym/extension coverage of level 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and the trigger ("Use for a pasted PR list", "owner-selected PR batch") is distinctive, with explicit scope limits ("every actual landing still requires its applicable checks and authorization") separating it from blanket-merge behavior. However, shared PR/merge/check vocabulary creates minor overlap risk with closely related single-PR merge or validation skills (the body's references to a `../_shared/` protocol family suggest siblings), so it does not reach 'minimal conflict risk' at level 5.