Conciseness

The body is lean and operational throughout: it never explains concepts Claude already knows and spends every line on system-specific rules ("Never call api.linear.app directly", exact env vars, marker comments). Nothing reads as padding, so it matches the 'every token earns its place' anchor rather than the 'minor instances of over-explanation' anchor at 4.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: a copy-paste curl wrapper for the GraphQL endpoint, an exact GraphQL field list with pagination instructions, concrete git and gh commands ("git ls-remote --exit-code --heads origin tessl/<id>", "gh pr create --base <base> --label tessl ... --body-file <file outside the clone>"), and verbatim comment templates. The remaining placeholders are deliberate variables, not gaps, which keeps it above the 'minor gaps' anchor at 4.

Workflow Clarity

The process is explicitly sequenced ("Read the record and take the first situation that applies") with a done-checklist, validation checkpoints (re-read the issue before every write, check situation 1 before every write, re-run tests after merging the base), and error-recovery loops ("If it fails or prints no URL, run gh pr list --head <branch> --state open before trying again"; failed setup.sh escalates to situation 4). Destructive-adjacent operations all carry validation (force-push only with --force-with-lease=<branch>:<head you read>), so the cap-3 rule for unvalidated destructive workflows does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clear and easy to navigate (inputs, Linear, finished state, situations, invariants, doing the work, judgment), but it is a ~150-line single file with no bundle files and no content split out, so it fits 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' rather than the 5 anchor, which expects well-signaled one-level-deep references. The under-50-line simple-skill exception does not apply at this length.

Specificity

It lists the full concrete action chain ("read the issue and the repository, make the change on the issue's own branch, run the tests, and open one pull request for the issue") plus a stop condition ("Stops without a trace when a person has taken the issue back"). This matches the 5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage); the 4 anchor requires minor coverage gaps, and there are none for this workflow.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and concrete, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent standalone trigger sentence; the 'when' exists only as the embedded qualifier "that a person delegated to Tessl", which makes it weakly implied. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3, so it does not reach the 4 anchor's 'has both what and when'.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords are present ("Linear issue", "delegated", "branch", "run the tests", "pull request") that a user would plausibly say, but there is no synonym-level coverage of the trigger space. This fits the 4 anchor (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than the 5 anchor (comprehensive coverage including synonyms and extensions).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (Linear issues delegated to Tessl) with distinctive trigger terms unlikely to collide with any generic skill. This matches the 5 anchor (clear niche with distinct triggers, minimal conflict risk) rather than the 4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.