Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no explanations of what code review or git is, and every section (When/How/Example/Rationalizations/Red Flags) carries operational content. Only minor trimming opportunities exist: push-back guidance is repeated across "Act on feedback", the Rationalizations table, and "Red Flags". Not 5 because that repetition and the somewhat long Example transcript could be tightened.

Actionability

Concrete elements are present (executable git commands for both SHAs, the exact subagent type, a four-slot placeholder list, explicit triage rules), but the central instruction — "filling the template at code-reviewer.md" — cannot be executed because that file does not exist anywhere in the skill directory. The referenced Example block partially compensates, but a missing key artifact is more than the 'minor gaps' of anchor 4. Not 2 because the surrounding guidance is concrete and specific, unlike high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered three-step sequence (get SHAs → dispatch reviewer → act on feedback) with explicit checkpoints ("Fix Critical issues immediately", "Fix Important issues before proceeding") and an error-recovery path for when the reviewer is wrong. Not 5 because there is no re-review loop after fixes and no guidance on what to do if the subagent cannot be dispatched or the SHAs are wrong; not 3 because checkpoints are explicit, not merely implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good and the template reference is clearly signaled and one level deep (linked twice, once as "See template at"), but the referenced code-reviewer.md is absent from the bundle — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist and no companion file is present, so the primary navigation path is broken. Not 4 because a dangling reference defeats the disclosure structure's purpose; not 2 because the SKILL.md itself is well-organized and does not inline content that belongs elsewhere.

Specificity

The only stated action is the generic "verify work meets requirements"; the skill's actual capability (dispatching a code reviewer subagent) is never named, and even the domain is only implied by "tasks", "major features", and "before merging". Not 3 because no concrete capability is listed like the anchor's 'extracts content'; not 1 because the trigger contexts are concrete rather than pure abstraction.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and well-structured ("Use when completing tasks... or before merging"), but the 'what' is only "verify work meets requirements" — vague, with no mention of code review, a reviewer subagent, or how verification happens. Falls between anchor 3 (clear what, missing when) and anchor 4 (both present); the very weak 'what' pulls it to 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "completing tasks", "implementing major features", and "before merging" are present, but the most common phrasings a user would actually say — "code review", "review my code", "PR review" — are missing. Not 4 because the synonym coverage gap is substantial given 'code review' is the skill's core concept.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Completing tasks", "before merging", and "verify work meets requirements" are somewhat specific to a development workflow, but the absence of 'code review' means it could readily trigger a testing, verification, or CI skill instead. Not 4 because overlap with closely related verification/testing skills is a real risk given the generic 'verify' framing.