Conciseness

The body is dense operational instruction with zero padding — e.g. "Trust nothing. The description, the diff, green tests, and your own candidates are claims. They become findings only after step 7." — and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Not 4: there is no over-explanation left to trim; every line directs a step, a rule, or a gate.

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands throughout: "`gh pr view <N>`, `gh pr diff <N>`, and `gh pr checks <N>`", "`git show <merge-base>:<path>`", "`git worktree add --detach`", and a lint script to run on the output, each bound to a numbered step. Not 4: as an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully actionable — every step names what to read, run, or record, with no pseudocode or vague direction.

Workflow Clarity

Nine clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation gates — step 3 ("Confirm the problem exists in the base snapshot"), step 4 approach gate, step 7 ("Give every Medium or higher candidate an independent verdict") — plus a recorded end-state comparison and a feedback loop: "If one does not, go back to the step that produces it." Not 4: checkpoints and recovery loops are explicit at every stage, not merely present.

Progressive Disclosure

The overview is lean and the reference table ("Read at" / "Holds" columns) is exemplary signaling, with audit.md, verify.md, report.md, and rationalizations.md all present and matching their described content. Not 5: two referenced paths — "`../../assets/writing.md`" and "`<plugin root>/scripts/prose-lint.py`" — do not resolve within the provided bundle, so a reader following the table hits unresolvable files. Not 3: all in-bundle structure is appropriately split and clearly navigable.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "Confirm the problem is real", "audit it for correctness, completeness, architecture, conventions, security, privacy, testing, reversibility, and dependencies", "verify every significant finding independently" — plus a named deliverable ("six-signal report"), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. Not 4: there are no noticeable gaps in the action coverage.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is the full audit-and-verify workflow with its output format, and the "when" is a literal "Use when the user says…" clause with concrete trigger phrases — the exact structure of the anchor-5 example. Not 4: the "when" could not be more explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Eight natural trigger phrases — "/examine", "examine this PR", "review this PR", "review pr #N", "review my branch", "look over my pull request", "check my PR before merge", "deep code review" — covering the synonyms users actually say (PR/pull request/branch). Not 4: no commonly used variant is meaningfully missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The closing line "Holistic where the host's built-in review is defect-first" carves out a clear niche, but generic triggers like "review this PR" and "deep code review" are exactly what built-in or sibling code-review skills would claim — minor overlap risk with closely related skills. Not 5: conflict risk is reduced, not minimal; not 3: the niche and differentiators are explicitly stated.