Conciseness

The 280-line body is noticeably verbose for a commit-message generator: the conventional-commit type list ("feat: New feature", "fix: Bug fix"...) restates knowledge Claude already has, and the staging-safety rules for hunk-level staging and cached-patch preservation appear nearly verbatim twice (Workflow step 3 and the "Important" section steps 4-8). Not score 3 because the duplication and known-concept padding exceed 'some unnecessary explanation'; not score 1 because there is no extended tutorial-style explanation of what git or commits are.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact commands ("git diff --cached --name-only", "git add -p", "git apply --cached", "git push -u origin <branch>"), concrete AskUserQuestion prompts with enumerated options, a precise message format template, and three complete commit-message examples covering the common cases. This matches the top anchor; score 4 would require minor gaps in the concrete commands or examples, which are not present.

Workflow Clarity

The Behavior section lays out a clear 10-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (user confirmation before commit, checking unstaged overlap via "git diff --name-only" before changing staging, requiring exactly one ultra marker before plan use) and feedback loops ("Edit message → return to step 7"). Not score 5 because three competing numbering schemes (Workflow 1-7, Behavior 1-10, Important sub-steps 1-9) make cross-references like "proceed to step 4" and "return to step 2" ambiguous; not score 3 because validation checkpoints are explicit and present, not merely implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), so everything lives in one file: sections are well-labeled (## Workflow, ## Format, ## Examples, ## Behavior, ## Important) but the ~70 lines of intricate active-plan/ultra-bundle resolution logic and the duplicated multi-commit staging rules clearly belong in a separate reference file. Not score 4 because substantial specialized content that should be split out is inlined with no references at all; not score 2 because the section structure is real and navigation within the file is possible.

Specificity

"Create conventional commit messages by analyzing staged changes" and "Generates semantic commit messages following the Conventional Commits specification" name the domain with 1-2 concrete actions, but both sentences describe essentially the same action and coverage is not comprehensive (no mention of message review/confirmation, push, or splitting commits). Not score 4 because there are not several distinct specific actions; not score 2 because the actions named are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both questions: what it does ("Create conventional commit messages by analyzing staged changes... following the Conventional Commits specification") and when to use it with concrete quoted trigger phrases ("Use when user says \"commit\", \"save changes\", or \"create commit\""). This matches the top anchor exactly; score 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit than the quoted trigger phrases provided.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers "commit", "save changes", and "create commit" are natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage. Not score 5 because common variations like "commit message", "write commit message", "git commit", or "stage/staged changes" are missing; not score 3 because the included terms are genuinely natural rather than merely relevant.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The commit-message-generation niche is clear with distinct triggers, but "commit" and "save changes" are broad enough to overlap with generic git/save skills or built-in commit behavior. Not score 5 because "save changes" in particular could plausibly fire for non-commit file-saving requests; not score 3 because the domain is well-focused rather than merely 'somewhat specific'.