Conciseness

The body is dense and lean: no explanation of git or rebase basics, every sentence instructs ("Never `-X theirs` or `-X ours`", "Lint and unit-test the affected area after each commit", "Read each of these on `new_base`, never from memory"). The two-sentence opener ("Git can replay commits. It cannot tell you whether the replayed solution still makes sense...") is the only framing text and earns its place by justifying the skill's existence — matching anchor 5's "every token earns its place".

Actionability

Guidance is mostly concrete and executable: exact commands and flags (`git status --porcelain`, `prose-lint.py`, bans on `--no-verify`, `-X theirs`), a five-class decision table with per-class actions, and explicit risk-gate conditions. It misses anchor 5 because the core mechanical command of the whole skill — e.g. `git rebase --onto <new_base> <old_base> <curr>` — is never stated, and the classification step gives no concrete method or example for producing the one-line justifications it demands.

Workflow Clarity

A 12-step (0–11) explicitly sequenced workflow with abundant validation checkpoints: a preflight dirty-tree check, a stop-and-ask risk gate at step 5, lint/unit tests after each commit, full verification at step 10, an evidence-based definition-of-done checklist, and a feedback loop ("One you cannot tick honestly sends you back to the step that produces it"). For a history-rewriting (destructive) operation this is exactly the anchor-5 pattern, well above the cap-3 risk the guidelines warn about.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is exemplary: a "Required references" table signaling each file with what it holds and exactly when to read it ("step 0, only if the tree is dirty", "when tempted to skip a step"), with detail correctly split out of the overview. It falls short of anchor 5 because two of the four referenced paths — `../../assets/writing.md` and `<plugin root>/scripts/prose-lint.py` — do not resolve in the provided bundle (only `references/stash.md` and `references/rationalizations.md` exist), leaving the navigation to those files unverifiable.

Specificity

The description names several concrete capabilities — "Rebase a work-in-progress or completed branch onto a new base", "ensuring the rebased changes still satisfy their original spec", "comply with the (possibly updated) architecture, conventions, and invariants", "introduce no regressions" — which is specific and nearly comprehensive. It stops short of anchor 5 because the actions are stated as guarantees rather than operations and omit concrete sub-capabilities the skill actually performs (dirty-tree stash handling, per-commit classification, final report).

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" ("Rebase a work-in-progress or completed branch onto a new base, ensuring the rebased changes still satisfy their original spec... and introduce no regressions") and the "when" with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when the user says 'rebase this branch on X'..."). This matches the anchor-5 example structure of explicit what + concrete when; a 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes verbatim natural user phrasings — "rebase this branch on X", "rebase my work on master", "move these commits onto the new base", "migrate a set of commits onto a different base" — covering synonyms and paraphrases a user would actually say. Anchor 4 would apply if natural variants were missing, but the quoted triggers plus the catch-all "otherwise asks to..." leave no common phrasing uncovered.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — semantically re-validated rebasing rather than plain git mechanics — with distinct triggers ("rebase this branch on X", "move these commits onto the new base") that no generic git or code-review skill would claim. Minor overlap with a hypothetical plain-git skill exists, but the description's framing ("ensuring the rebased changes still satisfy their original spec") keeps conflict risk minimal, matching anchor 5.