Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence — it does not explain what SOLID, XSS, or SSRF are, and uses a compact severity table. It is not a 5 because a few instructional lines ('explain why it improves cohesion/coupling') and the inline-comment format could be trimmed, and not a 3 because padding is minimal.

Actionability

It gives concrete commands ('git status -sb', 'git diff --stat', 'rg', 'grep'), a structured output template, and a copy-ready inline-comment format. It is not a 5 because the 'look for' lists are detection prompts rather than fully executable checks, and not a 3 because the concrete commands and templates are clearly executable.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step numbered sequence with edge cases (no changes, large diff, mixed concerns) and an explicit end confirmation checkpoint ('Do NOT implement any changes until user explicitly confirms'). It is not a 5 because there is no validate-then-retry feedback loop, and not a 3 because steps and the final checkpoint are explicit and well-defined.

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a clear overview that points to four real one-level-deep reference files (solid-checklist.md, security-checklist.md, code-quality-checklist.md, removal-plan.md), each loaded at the relevant workflow step and summarized in a Resources table. This matches the anchor for well-signaled, easy-to-navigate one-level references.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'code review of current git changes', 'Detects SOLID violations, security risks', 'proposes actionable improvements' — with only minor coverage gaps (e.g., removal candidates). It is not a 5 because coverage is not comprehensive, and not a 3 because it names multiple specific actions rather than just one or two.

Completeness

It has a clear 'what' (review git changes, detect SOLID/security issues, propose improvements) but no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so the 'when' is only weakly implied. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, so it cannot reach 4 or 5 despite the strong 'what'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases 'code review' and 'git changes' appear verbatim, matching what a user would actually say. It is not a 5 because no synonyms or variations (e.g., 'review my diff', 'PR review') are included, and not a 3 because the core terms are exactly the natural phrasing rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — reviewing current git changes with a SOLID/security lens — is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general coding skills. It is not a 5 because it lacks an explicit distinct trigger phrase, and not a 3 because 'code review of git changes' is clearly more specific than broad document/code skills.