Conciseness

Nearly every line carries tool-specific facts Claude cannot know (flag semantics, UTF-16 offset semantics, note visibility rules, error catalogs), and it assumes competence throughout — no padding explaining what diffs or CLIs are. Not 5: there is avoidable duplication — the `--source` guidance appears in both 'Session selection' and 'Reload', the workflow appears twice ('Workflow' and 'Typical flow'), and bullets like 'Quote `--summary` and `--rationale` defensively in the shell' state things Claude already does by default.

Actionability

Every section gives copy-paste-ready commands with concrete arguments — 'hunk session navigate --repo . --file src/App.tsx --new-line 372', the printf-batched 'comment apply --stdin' example, and 'highlight add ... --start 6 --end 19' — covering the common cases for each command family. Not 4: examples span inspect, navigate, reload, comments, highlights, and error recovery with executable syntax throughout, leaving no significant gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 'Workflow' and 'Guiding a review' sequences are explicit, and the 'Common errors' section provides genuine feedback loops (error string → diagnosis → corrective command), including validation of the batch before mutation ('validates the full batch before mutating the live session') and a confirmation gate for the destructive daemon restart ('ask before running `hunk daemon restart --yes`; never restart unprompted'). Not 4: checkpoints are explicit and recovery-oriented, not just implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so everything — full CLI syntax blocks, STML markup details, and a long error catalog — is inlined in one ~220-line SKILL.md, which matches the anchor example of '[200 lines of API reference] that could be in a separate file'. Not 2: sections are well-organized with clear headers, not a wall of text; not 4: the detailed command reference and common-errors material would serve better in a one-level-deep reference file, which is a real organization gap rather than a minor one.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Inspects review focus, navigates files, hunks, and exact lines, reloads session contents, adds inline review comments, and paints attention marks on character ranges' — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities. Not below 5: coverage is broad and each action is specific rather than generic; nothing meaningful is missing from the body's scope.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' via the enumerated concrete actions in the first two sentences, and 'when' via 'Use when the user has a Hunk session running or wants to review diffs interactively.' Both are explicit and concrete, matching the top anchor; not 4 because the 'when' clause is already specific and trigger-phrase-like rather than vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords — 'Hunk session', 'diff review', 'review diffs interactively' — that a user with this tool would plausibly say, and it stays in third person. Not 5: a few natural variations users might say are absent (e.g., 'code review', 'walk me through the changes/diff', 'untracked files'); not 3: the terms present are domain-appropriate and would be recognized, not generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Tied to the distinct product name 'Hunk' with clear session-scoped triggers, so it is mostly distinct. Not 5: 'wants to review diffs interactively' could plausibly fire for generic diff/code-review requests that don't involve Hunk, creating minor overlap with general code-review skills; not 3: overlap is minor, not routine.