Conciseness

Mostly efficient with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but noticeably redundant: step 9's example summary duplicates the "Output On Success" and "Output On Partial Success" templates almost verbatim, and the Guardrails section re-states rules already given inline (e.g., "Always prompt for selection, never auto-select" repeats step 2's IMPORTANT). Not score 4 because the output-template duplication is a clear trim candidate; not score 2 because there is no padding or tutoring of known concepts.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: `openspec list --json`, `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`, task-counting via `- [ ]`/`- [x]`, requirement extraction pattern `### Requirement: <name>`, and copy-paste `mkdir -p`/`mv` archive commands. Not score 5 because step 8a defers spec sync to an unspecified "openspec-sync-specs approach" and chronological ordering depends on change creation dates without any command for obtaining them; not score 3 because nearly all steps are directly executable.

Workflow Clarity

The batch/destructive operation is well served: a 9-step sequence with pre-flight validation (step 3), conflict detection (step 4), a consolidated status table before a single user confirmation (steps 6-7), per-change outcome tracking (success/skip/fail), and explicit failure isolation ("If archive target exists, fail that change but continue with others"). Not score 5 because there is no post-archive verification or validate-and-retry feedback loop (e.g., re-running `openspec list` to confirm, or validating spec sync results); not score 3 because validation checkpoints are explicitly present, so the batch-operation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well labeled (Steps, Conflict Resolution Examples, Output templates, Guardrails) but the ~235-line body is fully inline with no references/ bundle: the conflict-resolution examples and the three output template sections are content that would fit naturally in one-level-deep reference files. Not score 2 because structure is clear and navigation within the file is easy; not score 4 because no content is split out despite the length exceeding what the body alone should carry.

Specificity

"Archive multiple completed changes at once" names the domain (archiving completed changes) and exactly one concrete action (batch archive). Not score 4 because it does not list several specific actions (e.g., conflict detection, spec syncing, validation); not score 2 because the action named is concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

Both parts are present: "Archive multiple completed changes at once" (what) and "Use when archiving several parallel changes" (when). Not score 5 because the 'when' clause offers only a single narrow trigger phrase without variations or synonyms (contrast the anchor-5 example listing multiple concrete triggers); not score 3 because the 'when' is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ("archive", "changes", "several parallel changes") but common variations users would naturally say — "bulk archive", "batch archive", "archive all completed changes", "openspec cleanup" — are missing, and "several parallel changes" is an uncommon phrasing. Not score 4 because keyword coverage is thin, not score 2 because the terms present are on-topic rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The plural framing ("multiple completed changes at once") distinguishes it from a single-change archive skill, and the trigger clause narrows it further. Not score 5 because it does not mention the openspec context, leaving minor overlap risk with any other change-archiving or cleanup skill; not score 3 because the bulk/plural framing is genuinely distinguishing.