Conciseness

Every rule is a non-obvious, repo-specific failure mode ("Never present a zero-spend card as a cheap session", "a `grep -c '<details>'` then reports a block that is not there") with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It falls short of lean, though: the Step 2 "Three readings that are wrong every time" taxonomy largely restates what `references/card-signals.md` already carries, and a few dense parenthetical passages could be tightened.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: the three pre-flight probes, `bun run --cwd tools/pr-metrics card -- --resolve-issue --base "$BASE"`, the commit/push/PR-body-edit sequence, and specific recovery flags (`--pr <n>`, `--issue <n>`, `--format markdown`) are copy-paste ready and cover the common cases plus their failure modes.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–7 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the environment probe block, the merged/closed PR-state check that halts the push and body edit, the duplicate-`<details>` check before appending, and card-exit-1 handling with three distinct recovery paths (rerun with `--pr`, rerun with `--resolve-issue`, or stop and quote in RETRO.md).

Progressive Disclosure

The single bundle reference is real, one level deep, and well-signaled — "`references/card-signals.md` maps each of those to the question it answers… Read it before Step 3" — and operational detail in the body is appropriately separated from field-by-field reference material. It is not a 5 because the ~380-line body inlines some material (the `complexity.method` readings) that the reference file already covers, a minor organization gap.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "write and commit the session-metrics card for the branch", "read what the session actually cost against the difficulty declared before it started", "turn that into concrete changes to the skills, `AGENTS.md`, the wiki, the tests or the brief" — but omits the RETRO.md findings report and the PR-body render that the skill also produces, so coverage has minor gaps rather than being comprehensive.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both halves with concrete trigger phrasing: "Use when running the retrospective on a piece of work that has just finished — the retro, normally the step straight after `prep-pr` opens the pull request" states when, and the card-writing / cost-vs-declared-difficulty / concrete-changes verbs state what. It is not a 4 because the 'when' is specific and concrete rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present — "running the retrospective", "the retro", "what the session actually cost" — and the workflow position ("straight after `prep-pr` opens the pull request") is a natural cue for this repo's users; common variations like "post-mortem" or "session cost" are absent, keeping it short of comprehensive coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill stakes out a clear niche — "Also the owner of the card — nothing else writes one carrying the pull request's identity" — and its retro/post-`prep-pr` triggers do not overlap with adjacent skills like `analyse-sessions` (corpus analysis) or `prep-pr`, giving minimal conflict risk.