Conciseness

The body is efficient: concrete commands, no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, and tight sections. A few tokens could be trimmed — the '**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding' note restates step 1, and the '--schema' guardrail repeats steps 2-3 — so it falls just short of the lean anchor 5 while being well above anchor 3.

Actionability

Fully executable copy-paste commands are given for every step ('openspec new change "<name>"', 'openspec status --change "<name>"', 'openspec instructions <first-artifact-id> --change "<name>"', 'openspec schemas --json'), along with a concrete name-derivation example ('add user authentication' → 'add-user-auth') and a verbatim question for the AskUserQuestion tool. This matches the anchor for copy-paste-ready commands covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered 1-6 sequence with an explicit STOP step and guardrail feedback loops for error recovery (invalid kebab-case name → ask for a valid one; existing change → suggest continuing). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no validation of command output or handling of command failure (e.g., what to do if 'openspec new change' errors), though the operation is non-destructive so the cap-at-3 rule does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple, self-contained skill (~45 content lines) with no need for external reference files, and none are bundled. Content is well organized into Input, Steps, Output, and Guardrails sections with nothing that belongs in a separate file, which per the rubric's simple-skill provision merits a 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('OpenSpec change') and one concrete action ('Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow'), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It does not list the several specific actions the skill performs (scaffolding, status, instructions), so it is below anchor 4, but it is more concrete than the domain-only anchor 2.

Completeness

Both 'what' ('Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow') and an explicit 'when' ('Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification...') are present. The when-clause could be more specific — it does not mention OpenSpec context as a trigger, so it is broader than the skill itself — keeping it below anchor 5 but well above anchor 3's missing/weak 'when'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ('create a new feature', 'fix', 'modification', 'structured step-by-step approach'), giving good keyword coverage. A few natural terms are missing (e.g., 'change request', 'spec', 'proposal'), so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5 but is clearly above anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'OpenSpec change' and 'experimental artifact workflow' establish a clear niche with minimal conflict risk among similar skills. However, the when-clause ('create a new feature, fix, or modification') would naturally fire for ordinary feature requests unrelated to OpenSpec, a minor overlap risk that keeps it below anchor 5.