Conciseness

The body is dense and repo-specific with no generic filler — it never explains what an issue or gh is, and constraints like 'the local shell is fish, which has no heredocs' are concrete and load-bearing. It falls just short of anchor 5 because 'The faults, by name' largely restates Step 5's rules (stock paragraph↔rule 1, empty section↔rule 2, want-not-problem↔rule 4, slash shorthand↔rule 7, done-when-cannot-fail↔rule 5, pointer-only↔rule 8), a minor redundancy that could be merged into the rules as inline examples.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste-ready commands with appropriate placeholders for the search ('gh issue list --repo <repository from the table> --state all --limit 20 --search ...'), label listing, both issue-create variants (public and tracker, with exact flag sets), and the full project-item workflow including the --jq filters. Concrete formats are given for titles and body lead-ins, and common cases (planned work, bug, epic, finding, needs:decision) each get specific instructions, with a worked example offloaded to references/examples.md.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–6 are clearly sequenced (routing → duplicate search → title → type/labels → body → filing) with explicit validation: the Step 1 duplicate search across open and closed issues, the pre-flight checklist before running gh ('Right repository... no open duplicate', 'Every path and line in the body exists today', '**Done when** could fail'), post-filing steps, and an error-recovery fallback for 'No network, no gh' that forbids claiming an issue was filed. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview that owns issue writing and explicitly delegates what it does not own ('Two things this skill does not own, and links to instead') to one-level-deep wiki paths, and to references/examples.md for worked examples — verified to exist and referenced once, clearly signaled ('references/examples.md has one'). Content is appropriately split and easy to navigate, matching anchor 5; no nested multi-level references exist.

Specificity

The description enumerates the skill's full concrete scope — 'which repository it goes to, the title, type and labels, a body someone can act on months later... the faults agent-written issues fall into, and the command that files it' — with concrete issue kinds (planned work, bug, epic and children, follow-up, needs:decision proposal). This matches the anchor 'lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' and mirrors every major step present in the body, so it is not the level 4 anchor, which requires minor gaps in coverage.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'Use when writing a GitHub issue in this repository — planned work, a bug, an epic and its children, a follow-up a review or retro turned up, or a needs:decision proposal' gives concrete when-triggers, and the 'Covers...' sentence states exactly what the skill does. This matches the anchor-5 example pattern (explicit what + explicit when with concrete trigger phrases), not the level-4 anchor where 'when' could be more specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are strong — 'writing a GitHub issue', 'planned work', 'a bug', 'an epic and its children', 'a follow-up a review or retro turned up', 'needs:decision proposal', plus verb variants 'the command that files it' and 'whenever they open an issue'. A few natural terms a user might say are still absent ('create an issue', 'task', 'backlog item'), matching anchor 4 ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than the fully comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche — writing GitHub issues in this repository — and even demarcates its boundaries against sibling skills ('Invoked by new-feat, prep-pr, retro and stress-plan whenever they open an issue'), which keeps it from firing for pull-request or review work. Minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5; anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' does not apply because the sibling relationships are explicitly named.