Conciseness

The body is efficient, assumes Claude's competence (no basic-concept explanations), and uses tight command blocks and bullets. Minor over-explanation could be trimmed: the rule that 'context' and 'rules' are constraints for the agent is stated in step 3 and then repeated as two bullets under Guardrails, and phrases like 'This shouldn't happen with a valid schema' and 'Congratulate the user' add little. This fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' (4) rather than the every-token-earns-its-place 5 anchor or the noticeably-verbose 3 anchor.

Actionability

The guidance is fully executable: exact CLI commands ('openspec list --json', 'openspec status --change "<name>" --json', 'openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json'), the specific JSON fields to parse (schemaName, artifacts, isComplete, template, outputPath, dependencies), concrete selection-criteria for the AskUserQuestion step, and per-artifact file patterns for the spec-driven schema. This matches the copy-paste-ready, common-cases-covered 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear and ordered (select change → check status → branch on isComplete/ready/blocked → create exactly one artifact → re-run status to show progress) with an explicit checkpoint ('Verify the artifact file exists after writing before marking progress'). It falls short of the 5 anchor because there are no error-recovery feedback loops for failed commands or invalid status output — but it is not a destructive or batch operation, and the sequence and checkpoints are otherwise solid, so the 4 anchor fits best.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill has no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ do not exist) and everything is inline. The body is well organized with clearly labeled sections (Input, Steps, Output, Artifact Creation Guidelines, Guardrails), and the ~105-line workflow is appropriately self-contained, though the schema-specific 'Common artifact patterns' detail could live in a reference file. This matches 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' (4) rather than the 5 anchor, which the rubric reserves for shorter skills or those with well-signaled reference files.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('an OpenSpec change') and one concrete action ('creating the next artifact'), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions that are not comprehensive. It does not mention the other things the skill actually does (checking status, showing progress, prompting for change selection), so it falls short of the several-actions anchors at 4-5.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' is 'Continue working on an OpenSpec change by creating the next artifact' and 'when' is 'Use when the user wants to progress their change, create the next artifact, or continue their workflow' — a concrete trigger phrase. Both are explicit and concrete, matching the 5 anchor exactly; the 4 anchor requires a 'when' that is less explicit than what is written.

Trigger Term Quality

'progress their change', 'create the next artifact', and 'continue' are natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage. A few common variations are missing (e.g., 'resume', 'keep going', 'next step'), which keeps it below the comprehensive synonym coverage of the 5 anchor rather than at the 3 anchor where relevant keywords are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'OpenSpec' plus 'continue/progress' carves out a clear niche, but the trigger phrase 'create the next artifact' has minor overlap risk with sibling openspec skills that also create artifacts (e.g., a change-creation skill). This fits 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' (4) better than the minimal-conflict 5 anchor or the broad-overlap 3 anchor.