Conciseness

The core sections (tier table, axes, Step 1–3, output format) are dense and earn their tokens — executable case blocks, tables, and an exact format template with no explaining of concepts Claude already knows. It is not level 5 because points repeat: the severity-vs-confidence distinction appears in the opening blockquote and again in "How Callers Consume the Tier" ("it is advisory, like confidence, and it is policy-free"), and the policy-free point is made twice. Not level 3 because the padding is minor relative to genuinely needed rubric content.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: copy-paste-ready `case "$path" in ... esac` blocks for the exclusion gate and the path floor, an explicit combination rule (`severity = max(base_tier, path_floor, escalator_minimums)` over `low < medium < high < critical`), specific escalator shapes with exact minimums, and a byte-exact machine-readable output format (`## Severity: <critical|high|medium|low>`). It is not level 4 because no key execution detail is missing — the common cases are covered by the tier table plus escalator table plus the tricky-case golden set.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (Step 1 axes with reachability cap → Step 2 with the exclusion gate explicitly run first, then floor, then escalators → Step 3 max-combination), with validation checkpoints in the output format (each escalator must cite "file:line", exclusion and floor matches shown as ✓/✗) and a feedback loop via the regression-tested golden eval suite that locks tricky cases (test-path destructive statement, billing path floor, dead-path catastrophic bug). The destructive/batch cap does not apply — the skill is advisory and performs no destructive or batch operations. Not level 4: checkpoints are explicit, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Internal structure is good (a Contents TOC with anchors, and the rubric section explicitly flagged "self-contained"), but the body references files that do not exist in the skill bundle — `scripts/eval/golden/severity-tiering.jsonl`, `scripts/eval/l2.mjs`, `scripts/record-comment-relevance.mjs`, `agents/shared/rules/conventional-comments.md`, `rubric-composition.md`, `review-config.md` — and no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present, so the references are unresolvable. Additionally, the consumer-integration material (the blocking-flag crosswalk and caller-consumption sections) is inlined where it could live in a reference file. This matches the level-3 anchor (some structure, references present but not clearly resolvable, content that should be separate is inline); not level 4 because dangling paths are more than a minor organization gap.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "Emits a lowercase tier (critical / high / medium / low) from a fixed axis rubric, then applies one deterministic, executable path floor (auth / billing / migration / infra / secrets paths) plus heuristic escalators (data-loss, security, concurrency shapes) — both scoped to reachable production code". It matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions; it is above level 4 because coverage of the skill's behavior is complete rather than having minor gaps.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: what ("Rates how severe a finding or bug is if it is real — the blast-radius axis... Emits a lowercase tier... applies one deterministic, executable path floor... plus heuristic escalators") and when ("Use to triage a review finding or a bug. Triggers on..."), with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor that clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases are natural and varied: "how severe", "rate severity", "severity check", "triage this finding", "how bad is this", "/severity" — including synonyms ("how bad is this", "triage") and a slash-command form. Comprehensive coverage of natural phrasings; not level 4, which is for coverage missing a few natural terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche and explicitly disambiguates from the nearest neighbor: "complementary to confidence's is-it-real axis" and "the skill stays policy-free". Triggers are severity-specific, giving minimal conflict risk; it is not level 4 because the description actively distinguishes itself from closely related skills rather than merely having distinct triggers.