Conciseness

The body is dense with operational rules and teaches nothing Claude already knows — no concept explanations, no library tours — but a handful of rhetorical justifications ('The report is the deliverable. A run that leaves a differently-shaped file has produced nothing, however good the review inside it') could be trimmed without losing the rule. Anchor 5 ('every token earns its place') is slightly too strict for those passages; anchor 3 would require actual unnecessary explanation, which is absent.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: the verbatim heredoc report skeleton, the claim-shape-to-check table with exact commands ('git grep -l '"name": "@scope/name"' -- '**/package.json"'), diff/grep pipelines per step, and a copy-paste finding block template. Fallback behavior is even specified ('On a checkout that has no scripts/check-wikilinks.ts, or no bun, record the check as not run rather than as passed').

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation: the final grep checks ('Both must print 3') include interpretation of each failure mode, the wikilink script's exit code is defined, findings are written incrementally so a partial run survives, and a resumed run recovers from the file. The per-section checklist for --full sweeps is provided via references/checklist.md, matching the anchor's 'checklists for complex processes'.

Progressive Disclosure

The single bundle reference, references/checklist.md, exists, matches its description in the body (verified: per-section list covering currency, bloat, aids, structure, frontmatter, links, hygiene), and is one level deep and clearly signaled. Held at 4 rather than 5 because the main body is a full ~150-line procedure rather than a lean overview, and calibration detail like the Step 3 false-positive exceptions paragraph (TOML arrays, escaped-pipe aliases) is inline where a 5 would push more of it to the reference.

Specificity

The description lists six 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, and reports D-C/H/M/L findings in the four-field format' — comprehensively covering the skill's workflow. Anchor 4 ('minor gaps in coverage') fits worse since every phase of the review (claims, links, anchors, frontmatter, shape, reporting) is named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: 'Use when reviewing the documentation a branch changes — AGENTS.md, READMEs and pages under wiki/ — or sweeping the whole wiki with --full' is a concrete when-clause, and the cross-check/link/frontmatter/finding-report actions are a clear what. The 'Use when' clause is present, so the completeness cap of 3 does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'reviewing the documentation', 'AGENTS.md', 'READMEs', 'wiki', '--full', 'wikilinks', 'frontmatter', 'findings' — terms a maintainer would naturally say. Not 5 because common synonyms like 'docs', 'stale documentation', or 'documentation drift' are absent; not 3 because coverage goes well beyond 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — documentation review of branch changes in a wiki-based repo — with distinct triggers (wiki/, AGENTS.md, D-C/H/M/L tiers) that no generic code-review or doc skill would share. Overlap risk with a plain 'review this branch' request is minimal because the trigger is explicitly scoped to documentation files.