Conciseness

Lean and efficient throughout: every line is a project-specific rule Claude could not infer (template shape, word budget, changelog-agent integration, evidence binding to commits), with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The two-sentence opening frames the skill's philosophy rather than padding it, so it matches the top anchor rather than level 4.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: a complete copy-paste PR template with per-section content rules, exact commands (`gh pr create --base dev --title "<type>(<scope>): <change>" --body-file /tmp/pr-body.md`, `gh workflow run pr-proof.yml --ref <branch> -f pr=<number>`), and a worked example of an Evidence line. Common cases (no spec changed, UI changes, rebase) are each covered with a specific instruction.

Workflow Clarity

Validation checkpoints and feedback loops are explicit — run the spec before opening, "Red evidence is fixed, not narrated: fix the spec or the code and rerun it", rerun after rebase, and the before-section consistency check — but the end-to-end sequence (run spec → write body → create/edit PR) is implied across sections rather than given as one explicit ordered workflow. This sits between the level 4 anchor (clear sequence, most checkpoints) and level 5 (fully explicit sequenced workflow with checklists).

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned file (The shape / Evidence / Leave out / Do it) with no bundle files and no content that clearly belongs in a separate file; the template must stay inline. It meets the level 4 anchor (good structure, content appropriately placed), but at ~90 lines with no external references or navigation pointers it does not demonstrate the well-signaled one-level-deep reference structure of level 5.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "Open a PR", "write or rewrite a PR description", "check whether a PR description is readable" — with only minor gaps in coverage (e.g., title conventions are handled in the body but not named here). It is above level 3 because more than 1-2 specific actions are named, but below level 5 because coverage of the skill's full surface is not comprehensive.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both parts: the "what" is the list of concrete actions (open, write/rewrite, check readability), and the "when" is fully explicit with concrete triggers — "Use whenever a PR is created or its body is edited". Level 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit, which is not the case here.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "PR", "PR description", "PR body", plus a verbatim user-style phrase "the PR body is too long" and edit-time triggers like "its body is edited". Not level 5 because the spelled-out synonym "pull request" never appears, which is a common way users phrase the request.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (PR body authoring/readability) is distinct with specific triggers, but "Use whenever a PR is created" is a broad event that could also fire for adjacent PR-workflow skills, leaving minor overlap risk. Not level 3, since the focus on the description/body itself is clearly differentiated.