Conciseness

The body is lean with zero padding — 'Process steps in order. Do not skip ahead.' plus two two-line steps — and assumes Claude's competence, explaining nothing Claude already knows. It matches 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Guidance is high-level: 'Inspect the complete diff and the surrounding code' and 'Report correctness, security, and test-coverage findings with file locations' give no concrete commands (how to obtain the diff), no criteria for severity or what counts as a finding, and no output format. This matches 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute' — above level 1 only because the instructions are imperative and name specific finding categories and locations.

Workflow Clarity

The two-step sequence is present and explicitly ordered ('Proceed immediately to Step 2', 'Finish here'), but there are no checkpoints — nothing telling Claude how to confirm the diff was fully read or how findings should be structured before reporting. It matches 'steps listed but... checkpoints missing or implicit'; it is above level 2 because the sequence is coherent and unambiguous in ordering.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is short and well-sectioned, but the bundle's reference file (references/review-guide.md, which contains prioritization guidance like 'Prioritize behavior, security, and missing outcome coverage') is never mentioned or linked from the body. Scoring against the actual bundle structure, this is 'references present but not clearly signaled' — an orphaned reference and a clear organization gap; it stays at 3 rather than 2 because the inline content itself is appropriately placed and minimal.

Specificity

The description names a concrete domain and action — 'Review a Go change when the user asks to inspect a diff for correctness' — but covers only a single action (correctness review) with no breadth (no security, test coverage, or other review aspects). It matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' rather than level 4, which requires several specific actions.

Completeness

Both what ('Review a Go change... for correctness') and when ('when the user asks to inspect a diff for correctness') are explicitly present, satisfying the 'Use when...' requirement. It falls short of level 5 because the 'what' is thin — a single brief action with no concrete capability list — and the trigger clause is narrow rather than a set of concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some natural keywords users would say — 'Go', 'diff', 'correctness', 'review a change' — but misses common variations like 'code review', 'PR', 'pull request', 'patch', or 'git diff'. This fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'; it is above level 2 because the included terms (especially 'diff' and 'Go') are genuinely natural phrasing, not generic filler.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Go + diff + correctness niche is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against generic code-review or language-agnostic review skills. It is below level 5 because 'review a change/diff' is shared vocabulary with any general code-review skill, keeping some conflict risk with closely related skills.