Conciseness

The body is dense with tool-specific facts and does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but at ~450 lines it is verbose with real duplication: the 0/1 exit-code semantics appear near-verbatim in Agent Rule 2 and again in the Exit Codes section, the task matrix is stated to duplicate `fallow schema`, and the `flags --retirement` workflow enumerates every reason code, sort option, and output format inline. This fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' (anchor 3) rather than anchor 4, since the rubric penalizes verbosity even when accurate.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste commands with exact flags (`fallow dead-code --format json --quiet --unused-exports`), JSON parsing rules, a typed import path (`import type { CheckOutput, ... } from "fallow/types"`), non-TTY requirements (`--yes` or exit 2), and concrete workflow blocks covering the common cases. Nothing is pseudocode or merely descriptive.

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are explicitly sequenced with validation and feedback loops: the destructive fix path mandates `--dry-run` preview then verify; `fallow doctor` preflight gives per-check remediation with fail/warn semantics and re-run guidance; the walkthrough workflow validates judgments against a live graph and handles the stale case ('On `stale: true`, fetch the guide again'); baselines follow a save-then-gate sequence. This matches the anchor with explicit validation steps and error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with seven real one-level-deep reference files (cli-reference.md, mcp.md, issue-types.md, gotchas.md, patterns.md, similar-code.md, node-bindings.md), each with a one-line purpose in the References section and point-of-use links, and the bulk catalogues (e.g. the 236KB CLI reference) correctly split out of SKILL.md. However, the body itself inlines manual-level detail — full flag enumerations for flags/health, the CODEOWNERS caveat, and the judgment-file JSON schema — that belongs in those references, so it stops short of the lean-overview anchor 5.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete capabilities ('reports changed-code risk, cleanup opportunities, duplication, circular dependencies, complexity hotspots, architecture boundaries, design-system drift, feature flags, and opt-in security candidates', 'auto-fix supported issues') in third-person voice with comprehensive coverage of the tool's surface, matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is a list of concrete capabilities, and the 'when' is the explicit clause 'Use when asked to audit PR risk, find unused code or dependencies, compare semantically similar functions, detect duplicates, inspect architecture boundaries, merge runtime coverage, auto-fix supported issues, or run fallow' with concrete trigger phrases. This matches anchor 5; it exceeds anchor 4 because the 'when' is fully explicit rather than only implied or generic.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present ('audit PR risk', 'find unused code or dependencies', 'detect duplicates', 'auto-fix supported issues'), but a few natural terms users would say are missing, e.g. 'dead code' (only 'unused code' appears), 'code quality', or 'technical debt'. Good coverage with a few gaps fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive-synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to TypeScript/JavaScript static analysis with a named-tool trigger ('or run fallow'), giving a clear niche, but 'audit PR risk' and general quality vocabulary overlap generic code-review/lint skills, so it is 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' (anchor 4) rather than minimal conflict risk (anchor 5).