Conciseness

The ~35-line body uses a dense conventions table and assumes Claude's competence throughout, explaining nothing Claude already knows. The one justification offered ("an inline `--body` breaks on backticks and quotes in zsh") is earned, non-obvious project knowledge, so every token earns its place — matching the anchor-5 lean example.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready: `git push -u origin <branch>` and the full heredoc plus `GH_PAGER=cat gh pr create ... --body-file` block, alongside concrete branch-naming taxonomy, commit format with a worked example ("TAS-42: Fix token refresh"), and PR title format. This matches anchor 5's fully executable, common-case-covering guidance.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered Deliver sequence (commit → push → open PR → link from tracker, with the "Do not merge it" guardrail) is clear and command-backed, fitting anchor 4's clear sequence with minor validation gaps. It is not 5 because there is no explicit checkpoint (e.g., confirm the PR opened or CI passed before linking), though the non-destructive workflow means the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no external bundle files needed, and its sections (conventions table, Deliver, The tracker) are well organized. The tracker-config pointer (`.opencastle/project/<tracker>-config.md` and the task-management skill slot) is one level deep and clearly signaled, so under the rubric's simple-skill note it merits 5.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete capabilities — "Branch names, commit messages, pushing and opening a pull request, and working with the task tracker" — but they are noun phrases rather than action verbs, and "working with the task tracker" is generic. It matches anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5 because coverage is not fully comprehensive and one item is vague.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is the list of capabilities, and the "when" is an explicit "Use when branching, committing, pushing or opening a PR" clause with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor-5 example pattern exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when branching, committing, pushing or opening a PR" contains natural phrases users actually say, and the pull request/PR synonym pair appears across the two sentences. A few natural variants (e.g., "submit a PR", "review a pull request") are missing, so it fits anchor 4 rather than 5's comprehensive coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The git-delivery workflow niche (branch/commit/push/PR/tracker) is clear and mostly distinct. Minor overlap risk remains with closely related skills such as a commit-message generator, which the "committing" trigger would also match, so anchor 4 fits better than 5.