Conciseness

The body is efficient — concrete CLI commands with JSON field semantics, no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimming opportunities exist: the 'context and rules are constraints for YOU' guidance appears twice (in step 3 and again in Guardrails), and the opening line restates the description verbatim. This fits the efficient-with-minor-over-explanation anchor, not the lean every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: copy-paste ready commands ('openspec list --json', 'openspec status --change "<name>" --json', 'openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json'), explicit parsing of the returned JSON fields, concrete artifact patterns per schema, and clear output requirements. Specific examples cover the common cases (no name given, all complete, ready artifacts, all blocked).

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear and unambiguous: select change → check status → branch on isComplete/ready/blocked → create one artifact → show progress, with an explicit validation checkpoint ('Verify the artifact file exists after writing before marking progress') and a guardrails checklist. It falls short of the top anchor because there are no error-recovery feedback loops — nothing on what to do if the status JSON is malformed, the write fails, or verification fails — though the explicit verification step keeps it above the missing-checkpoints anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

A single-file skill with no bundle directories (no references/, scripts/, or assets/) and none needed — details are delegated to the CLI's instructions output, which is good design. Sections are well-organized and appropriately sized, but the 'Common artifact patterns' section partially duplicates what the CLI's 'instruction' field already supplies, a minor placement gap that keeps it below the top anchor.

Specificity

The description names its domain ('an OpenSpec change') and one concrete action ('creating the next artifact'), but offers no additional specific actions or coverage of what the workflow involves. It matches the anchor for domain plus 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensiveness, not the several-actions anchor above.

Completeness

Both a clear 'what' ('Continue working on an OpenSpec change by creating the next artifact') and an explicit 'Use when' clause with three trigger conditions are present. The 'when' could be more specific, though — its triggers largely restate the 'what' rather than adding distinct concrete trigger phrases, so it sits at the both-present-but-could-be-more-explicit anchor rather than the top one.

Trigger Term Quality

'progress their change', 'create the next artifact', and 'continue their workflow' are natural phrases a user would plausibly say, giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of the top anchor because common synonyms like 'resume' or 'pick up where I left off' are missing, though it clearly exceeds the some-keywords-missing-variations anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'OpenSpec change' and 'artifact' establish a clear niche with tool-specific vocabulary, keeping conflict risk low. Generic phrasing like 'continue their workflow' leaves minor overlap risk with sibling openspec workflow skills (start, archive, implement), fitting the mostly-distinct anchor.