Conciseness

The core protocol (Passos 0-3) is lean with executable commands and no teaching of concepts Claude already knows. However, the "Referência Rápida" table restates the step outcomes, "Racionalizações Comuns" re-argues points already made in the steps, and "Relação com `commands/worktree.md`" repeats the intro's framing — together ~40 lines that could be trimmed. Not a 5 because of this duplicate restating; not a 3 because the redundancy is deliberate summary/anti-rationalization framing, not unnecessary concept explanation.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready for the common cases: detection (`git rev-parse --git-dir`/`--git-common-dir`, `--show-superproject-working-tree`), ignore verification (`git check-ignore -q .worktrees`), creation (`git worktree add "$path" -b "$BRANCH_NAME"`), setup auto-detection, and baseline tests. Error paths are concretely handled (sandbox permission fallback, test-failure reporting). Not a 4 because even edge cases (submodule guard, both-directory conflict) have explicit executable checks.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0-3 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: submodule guard before concluding "already in a worktree", `git check-ignore` MUST before creating the worktree, and the mandatory test baseline before releasing the task. Feedback loops are present for both failure modes (permission error -> work in place; failing baseline -> report + ask). Not a 4 because validation is not just present but marked MUST/obrigatório with explicit recovery paths.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is clear and navigable (Passos, tables, source attribution) with no nested references, and the ~180 lines are all operationally relevant so a single-file layout is defensible. But the body references files outside the skill bundle (`GLOBAL.md`, `policies/execution.md`, `commands/worktree.md`, `scripts/worktree.mjs`) that are not present in references/, scripts/, or assets/ and cannot be resolved from the bundle. Not a 5 because those external references are not well-signaled as kit-context; not a 3 because organization within SKILL.md itself is good.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, named actions: "deteccao de isolamento existente", "preferencia por ferramenta nativa (`EnterWorktree`/`ExitWorktree` ou dispatcher do kit `/worktree`) antes de cair para `git worktree add` cru", and "baseline de testes obrigatoria antes de liberar a task". Coverage is comprehensive for the worktree-isolation domain with no vague filler. Not a 4 because unlike 'minor gaps in coverage', every capability of the protocol (detect, prefer native tool, fallback, baseline) is explicitly named.

Completeness

Both 'what' and 'when' are explicit: the first sentences state the concrete capabilities, and "Trigger em: ..." enumerates concrete trigger phrases — the equivalent of an explicit 'Use when...' clause with no cap applied. Not a 4 because the 'when' is not merely present but enumerated with specific phrases rather than a single generic clause.

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger list is comprehensive and natural: "worktree", "isolar workspace", "trabalhar isolado", "criar worktree", "ja estou num worktree", "aninhar worktree", "worktree dentro de worktree", "baseline de testes", "git worktree add", "EnterWorktree", "trabalho paralelo sem afetar o branch atual". It covers synonyms, tool names, and exact commands users would type. Not a 4 because no common phrasing of this need is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Every trigger is anchored to the worktree-isolation niche (worktree, isolation, baseline, branch protection), e.g. "trabalho paralelo sem afetar o branch atual" scopes the parallelism trigger to the exact conflict this skill prevents. Not a 4 because overlap risk with adjacent skills (branch switching, parallel agents) is minimal — the qualified phrasing disambiguates them.