Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no concept explanations ('Purely mechanical — no AI/LLM' is a meaningful signal, not padding), a compact parameter table, and terse sections like 'Outputs' and 'Known Limitations'. Every section carries information Claude could not infer; it does not fall to 4 because there are no trimmable over-explanations.

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready invocations ('pwsh -NoProfile -Command & ./.github/scripts/Find-RegressionRisks.ps1 -PRNumber 33908 -OutputDir /tmp/out') plus a complete parameter table with defaults, concrete output artifacts (result.txt, risks.json, content.md), and a runnable test command. The only template-style commands (BuildAndRunHostApp.ps1, dotnet test) belong to the downstream pipeline, not the skill's own execution, so they don't create gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step algorithm is explicitly numbered ('1. PR diff … 5. Compare') with three unambiguous outcome verdicts (REVERT/OVERLAP/CLEAN), and the invocation workflow is a single unambiguous action covered by executable examples and a Tests section for verification. Not a destructive or batch operation, so no validation cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed; all content is one level deep in this SKILL.md with clear section headers (How It Works, Standalone Invocation, Parameters, Outputs, Integration, Known Limitations, Tests) and no buried or nested references. Repo-external paths (e.g. .github/scripts/Find-RegressionRisks.ps1, maui-expert-reviewer.md) are well-signaled pointers to the target repository's own artifacts, not opaque indirection.

Specificity

Multiple concrete actions are stated explicitly: 'cross-referencing lines the PR REMOVES against lines ADDED by recent labeled bug-fix PRs', concrete label list ('i/regression', 't/bug', 'p/0', 'p/1'), and 'Emits a CLEAN / OVERLAP / REVERT verdict plus structured findings'. Coverage is comprehensive for the domain, matching the anchor-5 example's breadth; not 4 because there are no minor gaps in capability coverage.

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' (mechanical cross-reference of removed vs fix-added lines, verdict output) and 'when' ('Triggers on: ...' with four concrete phrases), going beyond the anchor-5 example by also adding explicit negative scope ('Do NOT use for: ...'). The 'Use when' clause is fully explicit, so the cap at 3 does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Four natural trigger phrases a user would actually say: 'does this PR revert a previous fix', 'check PR for regression risk', 'find regression risks in PR', 'is this change reverting a bug fix'. These cover the natural synonyms for the niche (revert a fix / reverting a bug fix / regression risk); file extensions are inapplicable to a PR-analysis skill. Not 4 because no commonly used phrasing of this intent is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (detecting reverted bug fixes in PRs) and actively de-conflicts by name against adjacent skills: 'assessing ship-readiness of a release branch (use release-readiness), investigating CI failures (use azdo-build-investigator), or general code review (use code-review)'. This exceeds the anchor-5 example, which has distinct triggers but no explicit redirects; no overlap scenario is left ambiguous.