Conciseness

The body is lean with concrete commands and no padding of concepts Claude already knows; the one-sentence definition of look-ahead review is non-obvious domain context. Minor trims are possible — the Examples section restates the Instructions steps, and the Panels subsection runs longer than strictly needed — keeping it below the 'every token earns its place' anchor of 5.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready bash commands for both the no-commit and with-commit cases ("roborev review --wait --type lookahead", the heredoc + "git rev-parse --verify --end-of-options" validation snippet), concrete error-recovery guidance ("roborev status", "roborev init"), and explicit presentation/next-step instructions cover the common cases. It clearly exceeds anchor 4 because nothing is left as pseudocode or high-level hint.

Workflow Clarity

Four clearly sequenced steps with an explicit validation checkpoint ("git rev-parse --verify ... || exit 1", "If validation fails... Do not proceed"), a feedback loop for errors (report, suggest status/init, re-run), and a verdict-conditioned closing step. This matches the anchor with explicit validation steps and error-recovery loops; the operation is read-only so no destructive-cap concerns apply.

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained file with well-organized sections (Usage, Sandbox access, When NOT to invoke, Instructions, Examples, See also) and no references to nonexistent bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist; the 'See also' items are slash commands, not files). It sits just above the ~50-line simple-skill threshold, and the detailed Panels subsection is inline content that could plausibly live in a reference file — a minor organization gap versus the fully split/ideal anchor of 5.

Specificity

The description names a concrete domain ("/roborev-lookahead-review") but describes zero actions — 'Use only when the user explicitly invokes...' says nothing about what the skill does (request a look-ahead review of a commit and present findings). This matches anchor 2 ('Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'); it is not anchor 1 because a specific command is named, and not anchor 3 because no capability is stated at all.

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present ('Use only when the user explicitly invokes /roborev-lookahead-review') with no 'what' whatsoever — mirroring anchor 2's example ('Use when working with documents'). It cannot be 3 because that anchor requires a clear 'what', and the explicit-invocation constraint does not substitute for one.

Trigger Term Quality

It contains one highly relevant, natural trigger — the literal command a user would type — but omits every synonym ('look-ahead review', 'peekahead', 'future leakage', 'temporal leakage') that appears only in the body. This fits anchor 3 ('Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') rather than 4, where only a few natural terms would be missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unique command name plus the 'only when explicitly invoked' constraint give it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk — it cannot fire for similar review skills or general review requests. It clearly matches the anchor for distinct triggers with minimal overlap.