Conciseness

Largely efficient — it assumes git knowledge and gives terse numbered steps with inline commands rather than prose. Minor over-explanation could be trimmed: the imperative-mood walkthrough ("'add', 'fix', 'remove' — not 'added', 'fixes'") and the one-line glosses on standard conventional-commit types restate concepts Claude already knows, though the type list doubles as the allowed-list referenced by validate mode. Not 5 because of those trimmable passages; not 3 because padding is minor and localized.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact commands (`git diff --staged`, `git diff HEAD`, `git status`, `git add <files>`, `git diff --staged --stat`, `git log -1 --format=%B`), a concrete subject-line template `<type>(<scope>): <imperative verb> <what and why>` with hard 72-char limits, a good-vs-bad example, and the full message structure in a copy-paste-ready block. Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, an instruction-only skill with this level of specific guidance earns the top anchor.

Workflow Clarity

Each mode has a clear numbered sequence with some explicit checkpoints — analyze's conditional fallback ("if empty, run `git diff HEAD`"), stage's confirmation via `git diff --staged --stat` and its ask-which-group prompt, and validate's PASS/violations report with corrected lines. Not 5 because generate mode ends at output without a feedback loop (e.g., "run validate mode on the generated message"), a minor validation gap that fits anchor 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-structured into four mode sections, each ending with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference line ("Reference: `references/conventional-commits.md` → Type Classification, Scope Rules"), but scoring against the actual bundle shows no `references/` directory exists — all four references point to a missing file, so the deferred detail (Validation Rules, Scope Rules, Atomic Commits) is inaccessible. Not 4 because the disclosure structure is only partially realized; not 2 because signaling and in-body organization are good and content is not wrongly inlined.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "Analyze git diffs or staged changes and generate conventional commit messages that explain WHY", "auto-detecting type and scope", "intelligent file staging", "interactive overrides" — but the validate mode (checking existing messages against the spec) is never mentioned, a minor coverage gap that keeps it below the comprehensive anchor 5.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is "Analyze git diffs or staged changes and generate conventional commit messages that explain WHY a change was made" and the "when" is the explicit clause "Use when asked to..." with concrete quoted trigger phrases — a direct match for the anchor 5 example. Not 4, because the "when" is fully explicit rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

Six natural trigger phrases users would actually say — "write a commit message", "generate a commit", "describe my changes", "commit this", "summarize my diff", and the slash command "/commit" — comprehensively covering synonyms and invocation styles for this domain. It does not fit anchor 4 since no obvious natural variant is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — conventional commit message generation from git diffs — with triggers dominated by unmistakably commit-specific phrases ("commit this", "/commit", "generate a commit"); conflict risk is minimal. The secondary phrases "describe my changes"/"summarize my diff" have only slight overlap with diff-summary skills, which still fits "minimal conflict risk" better than anchor 4's "minor overlap risk".