Conciseness

The body is procedural and assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations), but rules are duplicated across sections: context/operationGuidance handling is stated in step 3, restated in step 4, and repeated as three guardrail bullets; "suggest review or verification as appropriate before archiving" appears in both step 3 and step 7 plus the output template. Mostly efficient but could be tightened fits anchor 3; the repetition exceeds the 'minor instances' of anchor 4.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste-ready commands ("openspec status --change \"<name>\" --json", "openspec instructions apply --change \"<name>\" --json"), concrete JSON fields to parse (schemaName, contextFiles, sourcePath, line), the exact checkbox edit ("- [ ]\" → \"- [x]"), and complete output templates. This matches anchor 5's copy-paste-ready coverage of the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with explicit validation and feedback loops: before editing, confirm the checkbox at the returned sourcePath/line still matches and rerun instructions if stale; after completing a task, "rerun the apply instructions and confirm that task is now done and progress changed." Blocked/all_done state handling and enumerated pause conditions provide checkpoints and error-recovery paths, matching anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the body references no external files; content is well-sectioned (Store selection, Project check, Input, Steps, Output templates, Guardrails). This is good structure with minor organization gaps (anchor 4): the ~195-line body keeps the store-selection logic and three full output templates inline, and the under-50-line simple-skill exception for a reference-free 5 does not apply.

Specificity

"Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change" names the domain and one concrete action but does not list several distinct capabilities (e.g., reading artifacts, updating task checkboxes, reporting progress). It matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — above 2 because the action is concrete, below 4 because there is no multi-action list.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change") and when ("Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks. Also use when the user says 'openspec apply'..."), with concrete trigger phrases. This matches anchor 5; the 'when' is explicit and specific, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include natural phrases ("start implementing", "continue implementation", "work through tasks") and exact CLI invocations ("openspec apply", "opsx apply", "openspec implement"), giving good keyword coverage. A few natural variants ("apply this change", "finish the tasks") are missing, so it fits anchor 4 rather than comprehensive anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The OpenSpec/opsx command triggers carve out a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, but the generic clause "start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks" could overlap with other implementation-workflow skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk fits anchor 4; not 5 because of that broad trigger clause.