Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence ("Check `git status --short --branch` first", "Never hand-edit `openmeter/ent/db/`") with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable padding remains: the "Why:" bullet list and "In practice, regenerating first resolves or clarifies most conflicts much faster..." restate the same point as the preceding instruction. Not a 3 since excess is limited to one section; not a 5 since that section is mildly redundant.

Actionability

Every section gives copy-paste-ready, executable commands: `make generate`, `atlas migrate --env local hash`, `atlas migrate --env local diff <migration-name>`, `nix develop --impure .#ci -c <command>`, and `POSTGRES_HOST=127.0.0.1 go test -tags=dynamic ./openmeter/ledger/...`, plus exact file paths (`.up.sql`/`.down.sql` pairs, `tools/migrate/migrations/atlas.sum`, `openmeter/ent/schema/*.go`). The common cases are covered concretely with no pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The standard flow and migration flow are numbered and ordered, and there is an explicit validation step ("run the smallest relevant test slice for the touched area") with error-triage guidance ("If there is a known pre-existing failure, call it out explicitly and separate it from any new regression"). Regeneration-first is a feedback loop for conflicts. Not a 5 because there is no explicit post-recreation check that migrations are sequential and no guidance on what to do if `atlas migrate hash` itself fails.

Progressive Disclosure

The single-file body is well organized into clear sections ("Before rebasing", "Standard flow", "Migration conflicts", "atlas.sum conflicts", "Verification") with no nested or buried references, and nothing clearly belongs in a separate file. Not a 5 because at ~115 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill carve-out, and areas like the migration-recreation flow could be split into a reference file to keep SKILL.md a leaner overview.

Specificity

Quotes: "Rebase an OpenMeter branch onto another branch", "handle repo-specific gotchas like sequential migrations, atlas.sum conflicts, Ent regeneration, and targeted verification" — the domain and several concrete capability areas are named explicitly. Not a 5 because the actions are framed as a list of gotchas rather than multiple discrete verb-led actions, and coverage of what 'handling' entails is not comprehensive.

Completeness

Quotes: "Rebase an OpenMeter branch onto another branch and handle repo-specific gotchas..." — the 'what' is clear and concrete, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not a 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely implicit or underspecific.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: "Rebase", "branch", "migrations", "conflicts" — these are natural terms a user would say when needing this skill. Not a 5 because common variations like "git rebase", "merge conflict", or "conflict resolution" are absent; not a 3 because the core natural vocabulary is present and specific.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: "OpenMeter branch", "sequential migrations, atlas.sum conflicts, Ent regeneration" — the description is scoped to one specific repository and its named tooling, giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with generic git or migration skills.