Conciseness

The body mostly avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but a fair share of tokens go to non-actionable spec scaffolding — the 'SSL primitive' action table (READ/SELECT/CALL_TOOL), the 'Resource scope' table, and the Goal/Intent-signature meta sections — that could be tightened or cut. That matches anchor 3 (mostly efficient, some unnecessary content that could be tightened) rather than anchor 4, whose over-explanation is only minor.

Actionability

There is genuinely executable guidance: a canonical command path ('npm audit', 'bandit -r .', 'lighthouse <url>'), a concrete severity rubric (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW with definitions), an explicit priority order, and named standards (OWASP, WCAG 2.2 AA, ISO/IEC 25010/29119). It stays at anchor 4 rather than 5 because no example finding/report format is shown and per-stack commands are left as 'add project lint/test/coverage commands', leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The PREPARE → ACQUIRE → REASON → VERIFY → FINALIZE sequence is clearly ordered, with an explicit validation stage ('VERIFY: Reproduce findings and reject false positives'), feedback loops ('If a finding cannot be reproduced, do not report it as a finding'), failure-and-recovery handling, and defined exit criteria — matching anchor 5's explicit validation steps, error-recovery loops, and checklists. It is not anchor 4 because checkpoints are explicit throughout rather than having minor gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

The References section is clearly signaled and one level deep, but every referenced bundle path — resources/execution-protocol.md, resources/iso-quality.md, resources/checklist.md, resources/error-playbook.md, resources/verify-ship-protocol.md, and ../_shared/core/* — is absent from the skill bundle (no resources/, references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist), so navigation dead-ends for files the body says to 'follow'. This matches anchor 3 (structure present but organization impaired) rather than anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps', since core execution content is delegated to missing files.

Specificity

The description names the domain and a single action — 'Review changes for correctness, security, accessibility, and performance' — where the four quality dimensions are the object of one review action rather than several distinct concrete actions. It matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than anchor 4, which expects several listed actions; no output artifacts (findings, severity, remediation) are named.

Completeness

Both parts are answered: what ('Review changes for correctness, security, accessibility, and performance') and when ('Use for scoped quality reviews or verification plans'), plus a boundary ('bug fixes use oma-debug'). The when-clause uses abstract category terms rather than concrete user-phrase triggers like 'when the user mentions X', which keeps it at anchor 4 instead of anchor 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural keywords are present — 'security', 'accessibility', 'performance', 'quality reviews', 'verification plans' — phrases users would plausibly say when requesting a review. Common variations like 'code review', 'audit', 'QA', 'test coverage', or 'OWASP' are absent, so it falls at anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Review changes' carves out a QA-review niche and the explicit routing note 'bug fixes use oma-debug' actively disambiguates a neighboring skill. Minor overlap risk remains with generic code-review / PR-review skills, matching anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap with closely related skills) rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.