Conciseness

The body gives commands, paths, and decision rules directly with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, e.g. 'Run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`' and 'Count tasks marked with `- [ ]`'. It is not a 5 because the Guardrails section repeats steps 1, 4, and 6 ('Always prompt for change selection if not provided', 'Show clear summary of what happened'), and the opening line duplicates the description.

Actionability

Most steps are executable with copy-paste commands ('mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive', 'mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>') and a concrete Task-tool invocation including subagent_type and prompt template. It falls short of anchor 5 because step 4's 'Determine what changes would be applied' is high-level with no command or method for comparing delta specs to main specs.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints before the destructive move: parsing artifact status, counting incomplete tasks, checking 'If target already exists: If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date', plus AskUserQuestion confirmation loops for incomplete artifacts/tasks. This matches anchor 5 (explicit validation, feedback loops for error recovery), and the destructive-operation cap does not apply since validation is present throughout.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well organized into Steps, Output On Success, and Guardrails sections with no nested references and only a one-level reference to the openspec-sync-specs skill. Not a 5 because at roughly 93 body lines it exceeds the simple-skill (<50 line) allowance for a top score without external references, and the delta-spec sync assessment details could live in a reference file.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('completed change in the experimental workflow') and one to two concrete actions ('Archive', 'finalize'), but does not enumerate the skill's other concrete behaviors such as completion checks, delta-spec syncing, or the dated archive move. This matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') rather than 4, which requires several listed actions.

Completeness

It answers both 'what' ('Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow') and 'when' ('Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete') in third person. Not a 5 because the 'when' clause largely restates the 'what' instead of adding concrete trigger phrases or contexts.

Trigger Term Quality

'archive', 'finalize', and 'implementation is complete' are phrases a user would naturally say when needing this skill, giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of anchor 5 because common variations like 'move change to archive' or the tool name 'openspec' are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'experimental workflow' and 'change' terminology ties it to a specific openspec-style workflow, making it mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against generic archive/cleanup skills. It lacks the explicit tool naming ('openspec') needed for a clear niche at anchor 5.