Conciseness

The body is lean and every section earns its place: steps are terse, and the few explanatory lines ('--no-track leaves the branch without an upstream', 'Note which secrets source was used') convey project-specific facts Claude cannot infer rather than padding. Matches anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence') — there is no over-explanation of known concepts that would warrant 4.

Actionability

Every step ships an executable command or template: 'gh issue view <issue_number> --json number,title,state', 'git fetch origin devel', '/create-worktree <short_name> --branch origin/devel', 'git -C <worktree-path> checkout --no-track -b <branch_name>', and a concrete report block. Fully copy-paste ready with the branch-name regex for validation, matching anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints and error recovery: step 1 validates the branch name against a regex, step 2 verifies the issue exists, and step 6 re-checks pwd and 'stop[s] with an error if the cwd cannot be set' — a genuine validate/retry feedback loop. Worktree creation is additive, not destructive or batch, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. Matches anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the skill is well organized with clear sections and clean delegation to sibling skills ('/create-worktree', '/worktree-make-dev') that are clearly signaled. However, the ~93-line body exceeds the simple-skill (<50 line) exception and is a self-contained monolith without the overview-plus-one-level-references pattern of the 5 anchor. Matches anchor 4 ('good structure; most content appropriately placed; references mostly clear').

Specificity

Names the domain (git worktree, branch, GitHub issue) and one composite concrete action ('Create a git worktree with a new branch'), but coverage is not comprehensive — no mention of argument parsing, issue verification, or environment setup. Matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') rather than 4, which requires several listed specific actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and concrete, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — 'for implementing a fix or feature for a GitHub issue' only weakly implies when to use it. Per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3; it is not 4 because 'when' is never explicitly stated.

Trigger Term Quality

'git worktree', 'branch', 'fix', 'feature', and 'GitHub issue' are terms users would naturally say when needing this skill. Good keyword coverage, but a few natural variants are missing (e.g., 'isolated checkout', 'issue branch'), so it fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche (worktree creation with an issue-based branch for GitHub work) with distinct trigger terms, so conflict with generic git or branch skills is minimal. Matches anchor 5 ('clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk').