Conciseness

The body is a dense, unpadded 10-step procedure with zero conceptual explanation — every line is an instruction or a pointer ("Write the acceptance criteria... to the gitignored .plans/<task>.md", "never to CHANGELOG.md"). It fully assumes Claude's competence and matches 'every token earns its place'; it is well above the 4 anchor, which allows minor over-explanation.

Actionability

Guidance is largely concrete and executable: exact file paths (.plans/<task>.md, changelog.d/<branch>.md, docs/development/quality-gates.md), concrete flags (--format json --quiet), and a specific version-probing procedure. However, most commands are delegated to referenced docs rather than given inline (e.g., the actual probe command and gate commands are not shown), which fits 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps' rather than the copy-paste-ready 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The 10 steps give a clear, ordered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: a fail-first command for bugs ("get a command that fails before you change code"), "Run every applicable gate", "Resolve every block", error-recovery guidance ("after a restart, suspect the .fallow/ cache first"), and a closing evidence-verification step. This matches the 5 anchor's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references; it keeps itself procedural and points one level deep to clearly-named durable docs (AGENTS.md, docs/development/quality-gates.md, docs/development/review-routing.md, docs/development/task-context-map.md). Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections with no nested references score 5.

Specificity

The description enumerates a full lifecycle of concrete actions — "Research, implement, test, document, and review" — and scopes them to concrete deliverable types ("feature, fix, refactor, or repository improvement"). This matches the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'; nothing is vague or padded.

Completeness

It clearly answers both parts: what ("Research, implement, test, document, and review a Fallow feature, fix, refactor, or repository improvement") and when ("Use when asked to build or change Fallow"). The when clause is explicit but relies on a single trigger phrasing rather than the multiple concrete trigger phrases of the 5 anchor, so it sits at 'both present; when could be more explicit or specific'.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when asked to build or change Fallow" plus "feature, fix, refactor" are natural phrases a user would say, but coverage stops there — common variations like "add", "make", "update", "bug", or "pull request" are missing. This fits 'Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of the 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is anchored to the specific project name "Fallow" in both sentences, giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with any generic skill. Not the 4 anchor, since no overlap risk with closely related skills is identifiable.