Conciseness

The body is ~10 lines with zero padding: 'Process steps in order. Do not skip ahead.' is pure instruction and nothing explains concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, so it matches the top anchor rather than the minor-trim anchor at 4.

Actionability

'Run `.claude/skills/acr__example__all-agents__review-change/scripts/check.sh`' is a concrete executable command with an explicit output contract ('emits `{"ok":true}` on stdout and exits non-zero on failure'), but key details are missing: nothing describes what the actual review of the change and its evidence consists of, or what to do with the check result before 'Finish here.' Not 4 because the gap is major rather than minor; not 2 because the guidance given is concrete and executable, not high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

The single step is unambiguous with an explicit success/failure checkpoint (expected JSON output plus exit-code semantics) and 'Finish here.' bounds the process. Not 5 because no failure-recovery path is stated for the non-zero exit and 'Process steps in order. Do not skip ahead.' implies additional steps that do not exist; not 3 because the checkpoint is explicit rather than missing or implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is short and sectioned, but the bundle contains references/REFERENCE.md ('Use deterministic evidence.') that the body never mentions or links, so a bundled reference is present but not clearly signaled. Not 4/5 because that reference is undiscoverable; not 2 because no content is inlined that clearly belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

'Review a proposed code change and its evidence' names the domain plus one concrete action, matching the '1-2 concrete actions but not comprehensive' anchor. Not 2 because a real action is named rather than a bare domain label; not 4 because only one action is given where several specific actions would be needed.

Completeness

A clear what ('Review a proposed code change and its evidence') is paired with an explicit when ('when asked to assess implementation quality'), in third person throughout. Not 5 because the when clause lacks concrete trigger phrases like 'Use when reviewing a diff or PR'; not 3 because the when is explicit, satisfying the cap condition rather than triggering it.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms 'review', 'code change', and 'assess implementation quality' are relevant natural keywords, but common variations users actually say — 'diff', 'PR', 'pull request', 'code review' — are missing. Fits the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' anchor; not 4 because the missing terms are among the most natural triggers for this skill.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to 'a proposed code change and its evidence', but generic code-review skills would trigger on the same phrasing, so overlap with similar skills remains. Not 2 because it is not fully broad; not 4 because no distinct trigger phrase separates it from a standard code-review skill.