Conciseness

The body is lean and operational — no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, no library tutorials — with genuinely novel, tool-specific knowledge ('panel_role', 'synthesis parent', sandbox loopback escalation). It is not a 5 because the Examples section largely restates the Instructions commands verbatim and the 'IMPORTANT' paragraph partly repeats the task definition.

Actionability

Every step is a copy-paste-ready command: 'roborev show --job <job_id> --json', 'roborev comment --job <resolved_job_id> "<message>" && roborev close <resolved_job_id>', with the resolved-ID convention, quoting caveat, and both with-message and without-message cases covered by concrete examples. Nothing is pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The three-step sequence (validate input → record and close → verify success) has a real pre-flight checkpoint (inspect the job, refuse panel members, resolve the synthesis parent before acting) and an error section enumerating common causes with remedies ('suggest roborev init'). It is not a 5 because verification is described passively ('Both commands will output confirmation') with no explicit post-check command or retry loop.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so everything appropriately lives in a single well-sectioned SKILL.md: Usage, invocation rules, sandbox notes, numbered instructions, examples, and a 'See also' pointer to $roborev-fix. It is not a 5 because the ~105-line body exceeds the simple-skill size where pure sectioning earns full credit, and the Examples/See-also material is the kind of content that could be split out if the skill grows.

Specificity

The description is "Use only when the user explicitly invokes $roborev-respond" — it names no concrete action or capability whatsoever (no mention of commenting on or closing a code review, the roborev domain, or any operation). This matches the anchor 'Entirely vague; no concrete actions' on the capability axis; it is not a 2 because it does not even name a problem domain, only the invocation token.

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present ('Use only when the user explicitly invokes $roborev-respond'); the 'what' (records a comment on a roborev code review and closes it) is entirely absent from the description. This matches the anchor 'only when is present without what'; it cannot be a 3 because a clear 'what' is a prerequisite for that level.

Trigger Term Quality

The single trigger term "$roborev-respond" (plus 'explicitly invokes') is exactly the literal string a user would type when they need this skill, which is the ideal natural trigger for an explicit-invocation skill. It is not a 5 because the coverage is one exact token with no synonyms or variations ('roborev respond', 'reply to the review') that a user might naturally say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The literal token $roborev-respond is a distinct, unique trigger with minimal risk of firing for the wrong skill. It is not a 5 because with no capability statement, the description does little to distinguish this skill from siblings like $roborev-fix beyond the token itself, so a user reading the skill list cannot tell them apart.