Conciseness

The body is lean and command-first with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but a few points are repeated — 'context and rules are constraints, do NOT copy them into the file' appears in step 3 and again in Guardrails, and 'create ONE artifact per invocation' is stated at both line 72 and line 110. Minor trimming would reach anchor 5.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags ('openspec list --json', 'openspec status --change "<name>" --json', 'openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json'), precise JSON fields to parse, a concrete AskUserQuestion presentation spec, and clear output-path guidance. Specific examples cover the common cases (all complete / ready / blocked).

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence with three explicit status branches, a STOP rule after one artifact, and a verify guardrail ('Verify the artifact file exists after writing before marking progress'). However, the 'all blocked' branch offers only 'suggest checking for issues' with no real feedback loop, leaving a minor validation gap versus anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The single self-contained file is well organized (Input, Steps, Output, Artifact Creation Guidelines, Guardrails) with no nested references and nothing requiring external files. At ~107 lines it exceeds the simple-skill note, and the spec-driven artifact patterns section could arguably move to a reference file, so it fits anchor 4's 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than a clean 5.

Specificity

Names the domain ('OpenSpec change') and one concrete action ('creating the next artifact'), but 'Continue working on' is generic and no other specific actions are listed — matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It does not list several specific actions (artifact types like proposal, specs, design, tasks) that would reach anchor 4.

Completeness

Both 'what' (continue an OpenSpec change by creating the next artifact) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when the user wants to progress their change...') are present. However, the 'when' clause largely restates the 'what' rather than offering distinct concrete trigger phrases, so it matches anchor 4 rather than 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'progress their change', 'create the next artifact', and 'continue their workflow' give good keyword coverage, but common user variations ('next step', 'proposal', 'spec', 'keep going') are missing. It falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'OpenSpec change' pins a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, but the generic tail 'or continue their workflow' could overlap with other continue-style workflow skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk — anchor 4, not the clear-niche anchor 5.