Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative with no concept explanations Claude would already know; commands are given without padding. It is not a 5 because the --schema guidance is repeated three times (step 2, step 3, and the guardrails' 'Pass --schema if using a non-default workflow'), which could be trimmed to one statement.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready CLI commands are given for each phase ('openspec new change "<name>"', 'openspec status --change "<name>"', 'openspec instructions <first-artifact-id> --change "<name>"'), plus the exact open-ended question text to ask. It is not a 5 because minor gaps remain: no example with a concrete change name, and no guidance for handling CLI failures (e.g., invalid name errors beyond the guardrail note).

Workflow Clarity

A clear six-step sequence with an explicit STOP checkpoint (step 6), a status-verification step (step 4), and a guardrails checklist covering error recovery (invalid name → ask for a valid one; existing change → suggest continuing). It is not a 5 because there is no feedback loop after running 'openspec new change' — the skill does not say to verify the scaffold succeeded before proceeding to status.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a small, self-contained, single-purpose skill with no external bundle files and no references in the body, so everything belongs inline; sections (Input, Steps, Output, Guardrails) are well-organized and easy to navigate. There are no nested or buried references to penalize, satisfying the simple-skill exception despite the body being marginally over 50 lines.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Start a new OpenSpec change") and one concrete action ("using the experimental artifact workflow"), but stops there — it doesn't enumerate what the workflow involves (scaffolding, artifact status, instructions), matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' anchor. It is not a 4 because only a single action is stated, and not a 2 because the domain is named with a concrete action rather than generic processing.

Completeness

Both parts are present: what it does ("Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow") and when to use it ("Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification"). It is not a 5 because the 'what' is somewhat abstract — 'artifact workflow' is unexplained and the concrete scope (scaffolding only, no artifact creation) is not conveyed.

Trigger Term Quality

"create a new feature, fix, or modification" captures natural phrases users would say, giving good synonym coverage of the core intent. It is not a 5 because common variations like "new change", "add a feature", or the kebab-case naming convention users may mention are absent; it is above 3 because multiple natural synonyms (feature, fix, modification) are present rather than a single keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "OpenSpec" brand term carves out a clear niche that other skills would not match, keeping conflict risk low. It is not a 5 because the trigger clause "create a new feature, fix, or modification" alone is broad and could compete with generic feature-implementation skills when the OpenSpec context is not salient.