Conciseness

Mostly dense, non-obvious imperative guidance, but with minor repetition: "Never spawn sequentially — that triples wall-clock time for no benefit" restates the immediately preceding paragraph's point, the ungrounded-debate rationale appears in both Step 2 and the Anti-Patterns, and Step 8 triple-states its ALWAYS rule. Fits anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed); not 5 because repeated tokens don't each earn their place, not 3 because the padding is minor rather than a broad unnecessary-explanation problem.

Actionability

Concrete executable commands are present (wc -l, grep -rl | wc -l, ./scripts/validate-debate-verdict.sh with expected output, and explicit verdict enums), but Step 8 references ./scripts/validate-context-frontmatter.sh which does not exist in the bundle's scripts/ directory, and the Step 6 parallel-spawn block is comment-pseudocode. Fits anchor 4 (mostly executable with minor gaps); not 5 due to the dead script path and non-executable spawn example, not 3 because the commands that do exist are complete and runnable.

Workflow Clarity

Nine clearly numbered steps with an explicit validation checkpoint showing both expected and error output ("OK: 1 file(s) validated..." vs "must set 'revisit_trigger'..."), error-recovery rules for "It depends" verdicts, and a Troubleshooting table of failure modes. Matches anchor 5 (clear sequence with explicit validation steps and feedback loops); not 4 because checkpoints are explicit rather than merely present.

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a well-signaled overview: references/role-design.md and references/worked-example.md both exist, are one level deep (they contain no further bundle links), and are surfaced via a References table with a When-to-Use column alongside a Templates table. However, the body references ./scripts/validate-context-frontmatter.sh, which is absent from the bundle (scripts/ contains only validate-debate-verdict.sh) — a dead path among otherwise-valid references. Fits anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps); not 5 because of the dead path, not 3 because structure and signaling are otherwise excellent.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete actions — "spawning independent subagents in genuinely OPPOSING roles (advocate, skeptic, migration/risk)", "grounded in real repo investigation, not assumption", "concluding in a synthesized verdict rather than a list of opinions" — comprehensively covering what the skill does. Not 4: there are no coverage gaps within the skill's niche; every core action is named explicitly.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the "what" (stress-test an unwritten decision via opposing subagent roles, repo-grounded, synthesized verdict) and the "when" via a concrete "Use for" clause with quoted trigger phrases. Matches the 5 anchor exactly; not 4 since the when-clause is already explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes natural user phrasings with synonym variation: "should we do X", "what are the pros and cons", "I need pushback", "collegial review", "second opinion on this decision". This matches the 5 anchor's comprehensive natural-term coverage; not 4 because multiple synonymous phrasings are present rather than a few keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicit boundary disambiguation — "NOT for reviewing an already-written plan file (use plan-review) and NOT for refining a vague question through dialogue with the user (use socratic-method)" plus "BEFORE a plan exists" — carves a clear niche with minimal conflict risk. Matches the 5 anchor; not 4 because the two nearest sibling skills are named and excluded.