Conciseness

Nearly every line is a command or a repo-specific constraint Claude cannot infer ("Versions live in git tags only", "A release is done when the run is green and the GitHub release is published", the v0.18.52 checksum-mismatch failure mode), with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It is not 5 because a few passages could be trimmed — the incident 2026-09-09 backstory and its Warden mechanics ("warden.yml skips them and warden-clearance.yml requires head_repository == repository") state more justification than needed to act — and not 3 because there is no padded or redundant material beyond those minor spots.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands throughout: `pnpm release:cut` variants, `gh workflow run "Release App" ... -f bump=patch`, the gh+jq PR-triage scripts, `gh run watch <run-id> --exit-status`, `gh release view ... --json assets`, the `curl -sI` asset spot-check, and `npm view openwork-server version`. It covers the common cases (default cut, manual equivalent, expedited admin tag, rerun/recovery, verification); the only placeholders (vX.Y.Z, <sha>, <run-id>) are appropriately parameterized. Not 4 — no gaps exist.

Workflow Clarity

Clear, ordered sequence — pre-flight fork-PR triage, cut, watch, verify, validate — with explicit validation checkpoints ("never when the tag is created" done-criterion, `--exit-status` watch, asset-name verification, the validate-a-release gate before declaring rollout-safe) and explicit error-recovery loops ("If the run fails before the release is published: land the fix on dev ... cut the next patch"). The destructive tag-delete is gated ("Only delete/recreate a tag after verifying the GitHub release is still draft-only") and ship-anyway decisions require a recorded decision. Not 4 — checkpoints and recovery paths are explicit, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

A well-sectioned single file with clear headers and one-level-deep, clearly signaled pointers to repo materials ("Full runbook: docs/RELEASING.md", scripts/release/stamp-version.mjs and verify-tag.mjs, the validate-a-release skill path). No bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist, so this scores the file's own structure: good organization, but the ~55-line pre-flight triage section with two gh/jq scripts is inlined where a reference file could carry it, and the skill is well over the 50-line simple-skill exception. Not 5 (not a lean overview with split-out references); not 3 (structure and navigation are clear, references are signaled, not buried).

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete actions — "Cut an OpenWork release, release the app, publish a new version, rerun or recover a release tag, verify release assets" — plus the mechanism ("Tag-driven GitHub Actions release that makes zero commits to the repo"), covering cut/publish/rerun/recover/verify across the whole workflow. This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps') fits less well because coverage here spans every phase of the release lifecycle.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ("Tag-driven GitHub Actions release that makes zero commits to the repo") but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the action list only weakly implies when to use the skill. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3; it is not 4 because 'when' is never stated explicitly, and not 2 because the 'what' is concrete and multi-faceted.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are comprehensively covered with synonyms: "cut a release", "release the app", "publish a new version", "rerun", "recover a release tag", "verify release assets" — the words a user would actually say when needing this skill. This clearly matches the comprehensive-synonyms anchor rather than anchor 4 ('a few natural terms missing'), since the description already spans the release/ship/publish/recover vocabulary of the domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'OpenWork' qualifier and release-lifecycle verbs carve out a clear niche, but "verify release assets" overlaps with the closely related validate-a-release skill (which the body says checks updater-manifest sha512 and signing/notarization), so a user asking to 'verify the release' could route to the wrong skill. This is 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' (4) rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.