Conciseness

The command blocks are tight, but several sections pad or over-explain: the Anti-Rationalization table ('"I'll remember what I was working on" | "You won't."'), the @orchestrator ASCII diagram, and Step 4's explanation that 'The worktree is a full copy of the repo. Changes here do NOT affect the main worktree' — a concept Claude already knows. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not 2 because the core workflow, commands, and rules are lean and operational.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable and copy-paste ready, covering all common cases: 'git worktree add .claude/worktrees/$ARGUMENTS -b worktree/$ARGUMENTS', a complete dependency auto-detect if/elif block (npm ci / yarn / pnpm / bun), and merge ('git merge worktree/$ARGUMENTS'), PR ('gh pr create'), discard, list, and prune variants. The only placeholders ($ARGUMENTS, /path/to/main/repo) are inherently context-dependent substitutions, not gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow (select directory → create → setup → work → merge/discard) is clearly sequenced with an explicit Verification Protocol checklist ('git worktree list shows the new worktree', 'Tests pass in the worktree'), satisfying the destructive/batch validation requirement. It falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no error-recovery feedback loop — nothing instructs what to do when a verification check fails — matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized single file with clear sections (When to Use, Workflow, Worktree Management, Verification Protocol, Rules) and no nested or buried references. At ~155 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception that would allow a 5, and marginal content like the orchestrator integration keeps it at 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' rather than an optimally split overview.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("workspace isolation for parallel tasks, risky changes, or multi-feature development") but contains no concrete action verbs describing what the skill does, matching the score-2 anchor ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'); the second-person phrasing "when you need" incurs the rubric's mandated -1 voice penalty, yielding 1. It is not a pure anchor-1 fit ('entirely vague'), but the explicit penalty rule applies.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and concrete ("Use when you need workspace isolation for parallel tasks, risky changes, or multi-feature development"), but the 'what' is only implied — "workspace isolation" names a need, never an action the skill performs (no 'creates/manages/merges worktrees'). This sits between anchor 2 ('only when present without what') and anchor 3; the named isolation capability keeps it at 3 rather than 2, and the absence of any explicit 'what' prevents 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like "parallel tasks", "risky changes", and "without branch switching" are natural user language, but the description omits the single most likely trigger term — "worktree" / "git worktree" (the skill's own name) — plus synonyms like "parallel agents" or "work on multiple features", matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. Not 4 because the missing primary term is the one users most likely would say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"workspace isolation" and "without branch switching" carve a clearly git-workflow-adjacent niche, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. Not 5 because the words 'git' or 'worktree' never appear, leaving some overlap risk with general parallelization, agent-orchestration, or container-isolation skills.