Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — no explanations of git, wikis, or Obsidian basics — and nearly every sentence carries operational content. A few rhetorical justifications ("A run that leaves a differently-shaped file has produced nothing, however good the review inside it"; "a page that is tidy but contradicts the code is the worst failure this review exists to catch") are trimmable padding, placing it just below the every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready throughout: the verbatim `cat > DOCS-REVIEW.md` heredoc skeleton, the `comm -23` wikilink pipeline with full sed/sort stages, the `git grep` cross-check patterns, and the final `grep -c` verification commands. The template placeholders (`<page>`) are inherent parameters, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–5 are explicitly sequenced with a write-the-skeleton-first checkpoint, an edit-never-rewrite rule as an error-recovery loop, graceful degradation when the Obsidian MCP is absent, and a closing validation gate ("Both must print 3") that interprets both failure directions. This is a read-only review with validation present, so the missing-validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The branch-diff procedure lives in the body while the per-section detail is split to a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference — "The full per-section checklist — currency, bloat, aids, structure, frontmatter, links, hygiene — is in `references/checklist.md`" — and the referenced file exists and matches that description. The split is deliberate: SKILL.md for the procedure, the checklist for a --full sweep.

Specificity

The description lists four concrete actions — "Cross-checks every claim a page makes against the code", "finds wikilinks and heading anchors the branch broke", "checks frontmatter and page shape", "reports D-C/H/M/L findings in the four-field format" — covering the skill's full workflow with no gaps, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: the "what" is the four named actions, and the "when" is "Use when reviewing the documentation a branch changes … or sweeping the whole wiki with --full". This matches the anchor requiring both what and when with explicit trigger guidance, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present — "reviewing the documentation", "AGENTS.md", "READMEs", "wiki/", "wikilinks", "frontmatter" — but common synonyms like "docs", "markdown", or the ".md" extension are absent. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing, so it sits above the midpoint rather than at the comprehensive anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — documentation review of a branch's changes in a wiki-bearing repo — with distinct triggers (AGENTS.md, wiki/, wikilinks, --full) that sibling skills like code or security review would not claim. Minimal conflict risk with other skills.