Conciseness

The body is nine lines with zero padding: 'Process steps in order. Do not skip ahead.' and the output contract ('It emits {"ok":true} on stdout and exits non-zero on failure') each earn their place, and no concepts Claude already knows are re-explained. This matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor exactly.

Actionability

The single command is concrete and executable, but key details are missing: nothing says what to do when check.sh exits non-zero, and the body gives no actionable guidance for the review work itself (what to examine in the change or its evidence, what to report), even though the description promises 'Review a proposed code change and its evidence'. This is concrete-but-incomplete, fitting the score-3 anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor at 4.

Workflow Clarity

As a simple single-action skill the step is unambiguous — a specific script, its success output, and 'Finish here.' terminate the flow — which supports the simple-skill exception. It falls short of 5 because the failure branch is defined ('exits non-zero on failure') yet no recovery or reporting step follows it, a minor checkpoint gap matching the score-4 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle (references/REFERENCE.md, scripts/check.sh): the body references the script via '.cursor/skills/acr__example__all-agents__review-change/scripts/check.sh', a path that does not match the bundle-relative 'scripts/check.sh', and references/REFERENCE.md is never mentioned from the body at all, leaving its guidance undiscoverable. Sections are well organized, but references are present yet not correctly signaled — the score-3 anchor, not 4 (the mis-pathed script and orphaned reference are more than minor organization gaps).

Specificity

'Review a proposed code change and its evidence' names the domain and 1–2 actions (review the change, review its evidence), but never states what the review covers or produces — matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' anchor. Not 4: there aren't several specific actions; not 2: it goes beyond a bare domain claim like 'Processes PDF files'.

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly stated: what — 'Review a proposed code change and its evidence'; when — 'when asked to assess implementation quality'. The when clause is present but thin and could be more explicit with concrete triggers, exactly the score-4 anchor ('when' could be more explicit or specific); score 5 requires concrete trigger phrases, which are absent.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present ('review', 'assess', 'implementation quality', 'code change') but common variations users say for this task are missing — 'PR', 'pull request', 'diff', 'evaluate'. This fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than the good-coverage anchor at 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Review a proposed code change' overlaps heavily with any generic code-review skill, though 'and its evidence' and 'assess implementation quality' narrow the niche somewhat — 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' (anchor 3). Not 4: the overlap with code-review skills is more than minor; not 2: it is not broadly applicable to unrelated skills.