Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, every section carries instructions (e.g. "Run `oma docs verify --json`, `oma docs sync <range> --json`..."). It is not a 5 because a few passages could still be tightened, notably the long first failure-table cell ("Label the result 'manual inspection — `oma docs verify` did not run'; never present it as CLI output and never make installing the CLI a prerequisite").

Actionability

Concrete commands are given for all four modes (`oma docs verify --json`, `oma docs sync <range> --json`, `oma docs i18n --json`, `oma docs lint --json`) with a concrete fallback range ("staged changes, then `HEAD~1..HEAD`") and a fully specified manual fallback ("extract `[text](path)`, ``, and `href`/`src` targets"). Not a 5 because flag details live in the referenced resources/commands.md and `<range>` syntax is never shown with a real example, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step canonical path is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and a feedback loop: step 3 ("Verify each proposed correction against current code"), step 5 ("Re-run affected checks after edits and record remaining failures"), plus a failure-and-recovery table covering missing CLI, failed patches, and failed index writes. This matches 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery' — the batch-edit operation does have validation, so the batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and the References list is clearly signaled and one level deep, but the body repeatedly delegates operational detail to `resources/commands.md` ("Read `resources/commands.md` for flags and output files"), and no bundle exists — no references/, scripts/, assets/, or resources/ directory is present, so the primary referenced file is dangling. Per the guideline to score against the actual bundle structure, navigation fails at the first hop, which sits between 'references present but not clearly signaled' (3) and 'references mostly clear' (4); the missing file pulls it to 3.

Specificity

Quotes three concrete actions — "Check documentation references", "sync docs to code changes", "detect translation drift" — which matches the anchor 'Lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'. Not a 5 because the fourth mode (lint/style checking of localized prose) and URL verification are absent, so coverage is not comprehensive.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the what ("Check documentation references, sync docs to code changes, and detect translation drift") and the when ("Use for documentation maintenance in a repository"). Matches 'Has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific' — the when-clause is generic ('documentation maintenance') rather than concrete trigger phrases, keeping it below 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ("documentation references", "sync docs", "code changes", "translation drift") but common natural variations users would say — e.g. "broken links", "stale/outdated docs", "localization" — are missing, matching 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. Not a 4 because the natural-phrase coverage is thin beyond the word "docs".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The docs-verification/sync/translation-drift niche is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk against general writing or translation skills, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. Not a 5 because 'documentation maintenance' as the trigger phrase is broad enough to compete with generic docs/writing skills.