Conciseness

The body is dense and structured with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but guidance is duplicated: the Security > Performance > Accessibility priority order appears in both Transitions and Guardrails, and the no-broad-implementation rule appears in both Control-flow features and Effects. Matches anchor 4 (minor trimmable redundancy) rather than 5.

Actionability

Concrete commands ("npm audit", "bandit -r .", "lighthouse <url>"), an explicit severity rubric (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), and required finding fields (file:line, description, fix) give mostly executable guidance. Matches anchor 4 rather than 5 because of placeholder URLs and the absence of a sample report or finding entry.

Workflow Clarity

The PREPARE -> ACQUIRE -> REASON -> VERIFY -> FINALIZE sequence has an explicit validation step ("Reproduce findings and reject false positives"), a failure-and-recovery section, and a guardrail against issuing PASS while required checks are unverified. This matches anchor 5: clear sequence, explicit validation, and feedback loops for error recovery.

Progressive Disclosure

A dedicated References section clearly labels each external file, but none of the referenced files (resources/execution-protocol.md, resources/iso-quality.md, resources/checklist.md, resources/error-playbook.md, resources/verify-ship-protocol.md, ../_shared/core/*.md) exist in the bundle, so the layered structure cannot actually be navigated. Matches anchor 3 (references present but the disclosure structure is only nominally realized here) rather than 4, where references would be mostly usable.

Specificity

"Review changes for correctness, security, accessibility, and performance" names the domain plus four concrete review dimensions, but describes a single action without naming outputs such as findings or remediation. Matches anchor 4 (several specific items, minor gaps) rather than 5, which requires multiple distinct concrete actions.

Completeness

Both what ("Review changes for correctness, security, accessibility, and performance") and when ("Use for scoped quality reviews or verification plans; bug fixes use oma-debug") are explicitly stated, with a routing boundary to a sibling skill. Matches anchor 5 rather than 4 because the when-clause names concrete use cases instead of being generic.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "security", "accessibility", "performance", and "quality reviews" are present and would be said by users. Matches anchor 4 rather than 5 because common synonyms such as "code review", "audit", "QA", "lint", or "test coverage" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"bug fixes use oma-debug" explicitly disambiguates this skill from the debug skill, establishing a clear review/verification niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk.