Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations) but repeats content: the parallel `oma agent spawn` example appears in both "Canonical command path" and Step 2, the native-vendor resolution rule is stated twice (the paragraph after the canonical path and Step 2's numbered list), and worktree-isolation advice appears both in the spawn-options note and guardrail 5. This matches anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than 4, since the duplication plus ceremonial tables ("SSL primitive", "Resource scope") exceed minor over-explanation.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance dominates: full spawn commands with flags (`oma agent spawn backend <file> <session-id> --task-id ... -w ./backend &`), a progress-file naming pattern, the oma-config.yaml vendor-resolution procedure, and useful spawn options. Not 5 because prompt-file construction (`<pm-prompt-file>` contents) and the QA review mechanics are unspecified, leaving gaps in copy-paste readiness.

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-phase sequence (PREPARE/ACT/VERIFY/FINALIZE) with a matching four-step workflow, explicit validation checkpoints (VERIFY scene, Step 3 contract/data-model checks, Step 4 QA review), feedback loops for error recovery ("Resolve blocking defects and required verification gaps through the responsible agents; rerun affected checks before finalizing", plus the Failure and recovery section), and a guardrails checklist — matching the anchor 5 example.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent) and all detail is inlined in a single 161-line file; the two shared references (`../_shared/core/code-intelligence.md`, `../_shared/runtime/memory-protocol.md`) are clearly signaled inline but point outside the bundle, and the closing "## References" section is an empty dangling header. This sits between anchor 3 (some structure, inline content) and anchor 4 (good structure, minor gaps) — the empty References section and fully monolithic placement keep it at 3.

Specificity

"Coordinate assigned specialist tasks and handoffs manually" names the domain and 1-2 concrete actions (coordinating tasks, managing handoffs) but is not comprehensive — planning, spawning, monitoring, and QA review from the body are absent. It matches anchor 3 rather than 4 because it does not list several specific actions, and rather than 2 because the actions go beyond generic domain naming.

Completeness

It answers both: what ("Coordinate assigned specialist tasks and handoffs manually") and when ("Use when supervising a multi-agent project step by step") — an explicit trigger clause is present. Not 5 because the 'when' covers a single narrow scenario and the 'what' is thin relative to the skill's actual scope (planning, spawning, monitoring, QA).

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say are present: "coordinate", "multi-agent project", "handoffs", "supervising", "step by step" — good coverage with only a few common variations missing (e.g., "orchestrate", "delegate", "manage agents"). Not 5 because synonyms like "orchestrate"/"delegate" and related natural phrasings are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"manually" and "step by step" explicitly differentiate it from the closely related automated orchestrator skill, and the multi-agent handoff domain is fairly niche. Not 5 because a request like "coordinate these agents" could still route to either the orchestrator or this skill; not 3 because the manual/step-by-step qualifier is a real, explicit differentiator.