Conciseness

The body is noticeably verbose with several padded sections: the Parallel Delegation bullet restates the "listing before inline check" and "speed is not one of the two conditions" rules three times each, Phase 2's git-diff ban is explained in three separate restatements, and motivational asides ("The claim is a factual report about this machine, and without the command's output behind it you are stating something you did not check") lecture rather than instruct. It avoids anchor 1 only because the material is genuinely non-obvious domain procedure rather than concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Guidance is overwhelmingly concrete — exact commands (`git worktree add <SCRATCH>/jit-parent-<sid> <parent-sha>`, `git log -1 --pretty=%B`, `git reset --hard HEAD~1`), an ordered first-match-wins verdict selection rule, and a full report template. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5: the body repeatedly cites "Rule 10", "Rule 11", "Rule 12", and "Rule 13" which the Rules section never defines (it stops at 6), and `<SCRATCH>`/`<sid>` are undefined placeholders.

Workflow Clarity

Three strictly sequenced phases with an explicit verdict gate between them, error-recovery feedback loops (degradation notes, fallback rules, the Phase 3 check-two-things-then-reset undo procedure), and a closing verification checklist. Destructive operations (hard reset, commits, staging) all carry explicit validation checkpoints — exactly anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist at all; three entire workflows (review, commit, reflect — the generator header confirms they are three separate atom source files) are inlined into one ~350-line monolith. Internal structure is real (headers, numbered steps, tagged blocks), which lifts it above anchor 2's "minimal structure", but content that clearly belongs in separate files is inline with no navigation, matching anchor 3.

Specificity

"review the uncommitted changes and then commit them" names the domain and two concrete actions gated by a verdict, but does not enumerate the composite's sub-capabilities (QA, code review, doc sync, reflection). This matches the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage, and falls short of anchor 4 which expects several specific actions listed.

Completeness

Both what ("review the uncommitted changes and then commit them — the verdict gates the commit") and when (explicit "Use when..." clause with negative boundary) are present. The when is excellent, but the what stays thin on what the phases actually do, matching anchor 4 (both present, one could be more explicit) rather than anchor 5's fully concrete both.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present — "review the uncommitted changes", "commit", plus exclusion triggers "Not for a review alone or a plain commit". A few natural variations users might say ("check my diff", "land/ship my changes") are missing, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Not for a review alone or a plain commit" explicitly disambiguates this composite from both single-purpose siblings, giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk — exactly anchor 5.