Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with no padded prose, but the five Review Dimensions sections (~25 lines) enumerate knowledge Claude already has — "DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)", "Input validation", "SQL injection prevention", "Algorithm efficiency", "Type annotations" — generic checklists that could be collapsed to dimension names or moved to a reference. This exceeds the 'minor instances of over-explanation' of anchor 4 but is well short of the heavily padded anchor 2.

Actionability

The Quick Start is real, near-executable code verified against the bundle ("from scripts.qa_reviewer import QAReviewer" / "await reviewer.review_feature(\"auth-001\")" matches the actual async method at scripts/qa_reviewer.py:79), and the gates are concrete ("minimum_score: 70", named required_checks). Not 5 because `project_dir` is undefined in the example and the 7 workflow steps are abstract labels with no runnable commands; not 3 because the guidance is genuine executable code, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step QA workflow (SCAN → ... → APPROVE) is a clearly sequenced process backed by an explicit Quality Gates section, but the FIX step batch-modifies changed files with no stated feedback loop — there is no 're-run checks after fixes before approving' step. Per the rubric's cap for batch operations missing validate→fix→retry loops, workflow clarity is capped at 3 despite the clear sequence.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-sectioned overview that defers implementation to a real one-level-deep reference ("See `scripts/qa_reviewer.py` for full implementation" — the file exists and exports QAReviewer), with the Quick Start also pointing at it. Not 5 because the API Reference section is a single terse pointer with no signposting of what the script provides (key methods, config options), leaving navigation into the bundle weakly signaled.

Specificity

The 'what' is a single generic action ("Quality assurance review for implementations") and the trigger clauses ("reviewing code quality, checking implementation standards, ... validating feature quality") restate near-synonymous review verbs rather than distinct capabilities; no mention of scoring, quality gates, or auto-fix. It lists actions but they are overlapping and generic, matching the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' rather than the anchor 4 example of several distinct concrete actions.

Completeness

Both 'what' ("Quality assurance review for implementations") and an explicit 'when' ("Use when reviewing code quality, checking implementation standards, performing QA cycles, or validating feature quality") are present in third person. Not 5 because the 'what' is thin — one generic phrase with no concrete capability list — whereas the when clause carries all the detail.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present: "code quality", "implementation standards", "QA cycles", "validating feature quality". Not 5 because common synonyms and variations ("code review", "audit", "best practices", "lint") are missing; not 3 because coverage spans several natural terms beyond a single keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger "reviewing code quality" would naturally fire on a generic code-review request, creating real overlap with code-review, lint, and security-review skills; "performing QA cycles" and "validating feature quality" provide only a partial niche. This matches 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' rather than the minor-overlap anchor 4.