Conciseness

The body re-teaches concepts Claude already knows — a full Conventional Commits table of feat/fix/refactor types, the "<type>(<scope>): <description>" format, and Steps 2–4 on choosing type/scope/description — plus a boilerplate "Scheduling" section (intent signature, expected inputs/outputs, control-flow features) that duplicates later content. It is not severely padded and does include genuinely non-obvious project rules, so it sits at 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' rather than a 2.

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands appear throughout: "git status -sb", "git diff --staged", the HEREDOC commit with a "-F /tmp/oma-commit-msg.txt" fallback, "git worktree add", "--force-with-lease", and "rerere", plus a crisp split rule ("one feature, few files (≤5)"). It is not a 5 because the onboarding risk scan ("High churn files in lookback window", "Bug hotspot files") gives no commands for computing these, and conflict handling ("resolve markers, test") stays high-level.

Workflow Clarity

Sequencing is explicit — Entry → Scenes (PREPARE…FINALIZE) → Transitions → Failure and recovery → Exit — with a VERIFY scene checking "status, staged diff, CI expectations, signatures, secrets", approval gates for history rewrites, and a CODEOWNERS checklist. It falls short of 5 because several checkpoints are labels rather than executable validation steps (e.g. "test" after conflict resolution names no command, and the onboarding scan has no verification procedure).

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned but inlines substantial content that belongs in reference files (the full Conventional Commits tutorial, the onboarding risk scan, the CODEOWNERS playbook summary), and its references — "config/commit-config.yaml", "config/cm-config.yaml", "resources/conventional-commits.md", "resources/onboarding-risk-signals.md", "resources/codeowners-playbook.md", and "../../workflows/scm.md" — point to files that do not exist in this bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present). That matches 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' rather than the well-placed, clearly-navigable split of a 4.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete capability areas — "branching, merges, conflicts, worktrees, baselines, audit readiness, plus Conventional Commits and safe staging" — going well beyond a generic domain label. It falls short of a 5 because these are topic nouns rather than concrete actions, and tagging/releases/committing are only implied rather than named.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (SCM/Git operations and governance), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description — the 'when' is entirely absent, not just weakly implied. Per the judging guideline, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3; a 4 would require at least an implicit or partial 'when'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural keywords users would say are present: "Git", "branching", "merges", "conflicts", "worktrees", "staging", "Conventional Commits". A few common natural terms are missing ("commit", "rebase", "tag/release", "pull request"), matching the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of a 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Distinctive terms like "audit readiness", "baselines", "Conventional Commits", and "safe staging" carve out a clear CM-governance niche. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the broad "Git — branching, merges, conflicts" framing overlaps with generic Git or commit-message skills.