Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative throughout, with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable redundancy exists: the 'Fluid Workflow Integration' section repeats the guardrail about updating artifacts when implementation reveals issues, and 'keep changes minimal' appears in both the task loop and the guardrails. Fits 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than 5.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready with explicit flags (`openspec status --change "<name>" --json`, `openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json`), state handling is concrete (`state: "blocked"`, `state: "all_done"`), task completion uses exact checkbox syntax `- [ ]` → `- [x]`, and full output templates cover the common cases. Matches 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step sequence is clear with explicit validation via state checks (blocked/all_done) and pause-on-error checkpoints, plus a guardrails checklist. A minor validation gap: the workflow never re-runs `openspec status --json` at the end to verify the recorded progress matches the file edits. Fits 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than 5.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed for this single-file procedural workflow; sections are well-organized with clear headers and everything inline belongs inline. Minor organization gaps (the redundant closing section and interleaved output templates) keep it at 'Good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' rather than the cleanly split, well-signaled structure of anchor 5.

Specificity

"Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change" names the domain and one concrete action, but does not enumerate the several specific actions the skill actually performs (select change, check status, read context files, mark tasks complete). Fits the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' rather than 4, which requires several listed actions.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both: what ("Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change") and when ("Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks") with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor for a complete what+when pair, and is not score 4 since the when-clause is already explicit and covers multiple distinct scenarios.

Trigger Term Quality

"start implementing", "continue implementation", and "work through tasks" are natural phrases users would say. A few common variations are missing (e.g., "apply the change", "finish the tasks", "do the tasks"), so it fits 'Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenSpec change" is a distinct niche term, but the trigger phrases "start implementing", "continue implementation", and "work through tasks" are generic and could fire on any implementation request in a non-OpenSpec project, creating real overlap risk with general coding skills. Fits 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' rather than 4, whose minor-overlap examples retain domain-specific triggers.