Conciseness

Nearly all content is repo-specific operational knowledge Claude cannot infer (workflow filenames, screen statuses, DCO/CLA policy, carry rules), so most tokens earn their place. However, the /test head-binding semantics and Warden's fork behavior are each explained twice (intro plus sections 3 and 7), which is minor over-explanation that could be trimmed — anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste-ready gh/git commands with exact jq filters and grep patterns (e.g. the check-runs query in section 3, the IPC/network/dependency greps in section 5, the complete cherry-pick carry sequence in section 6), each paired with explicit decision rules for outcomes. Matches anchor 5; specific examples cover the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced sections with explicit validation checkpoints ("Anything doubtful -> Blocked", "contributor-pr/warden not success on that head -> Blocked", stale-head rerun of sections 1/3/4/5) and genuine feedback loops (blocked screens require contributor fixes; AI-screen refusal paths; carry authorship verification after cherry-pick). The mandatory OK/Blocked/N/A checklist in section 7 matches anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: well-organized numbered sections, clearly signaled commands, and one clearly-labeled external reference ([deployment and security caveats](../../../docs/fork-contributor-ci.md)). But the ~55-line CI-machinery background in the intro (contributor-pr.yml, contributor-warden.yml, screen status semantics) is inline content that could live in a reference file, keeping SKILL.md closer to an overview — anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps'.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "check provenance (DCO) and ee/ CLA", "run /test", "carry a fork commit into a same-repo branch", "is this PR safe to merge" — but the security-review (Warden) and full-diff-reading checklist items from the body are not surfaced, so coverage has minor gaps. This fits anchor 4 better than anchor 5, which requires comprehensive coverage of the skill's actions.

Completeness

Both what ("check provenance (DCO) and ee/ CLA, run /test, carry a fork commit") and when ("Checklist for pull requests from forks before a human approves or merges them") are explicitly stated with concrete trigger phrases. Anchor 5 is the clear fit; anchor 4's weaker 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage with synonyms for the core concept — "fork PR", "external contributor PR", "pull requests from forks" — plus phrases a maintainer would actually say ("safe to merge", "test", "DCO", "CLA"). Matches anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage; no meaningful natural phrasing for this domain is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (pull requests from forks by external contributors) with distinct triggers — "fork PR", "external contributor PR", "carry a fork commit" — that a same-repo or generic code-review request would not match. Minimal conflict risk with related review skills; anchor 5 fits.