Conciseness

The body is substantive and project-specific throughout -- no generic concepts are re-explained -- but its three core principles are each restated 3-4 times across sections: the empty-list fallthrough appears in Mindset ("an empty follow-up list is a completely normal outcome ... never grounds for stopping"), Rule 2, Workflow step 2 ("If none are ACTIVE, say so explicitly and continue anyway (Rule 2)"), and Anti-Pattern 1; the read-only/no-mutation rule in Rule 1, When NOT to Use, and Anti-Pattern 3; and the judgment-call caveat in Rule 3, step 4, Anti-Pattern 2, and Anti-Pattern 5. Anti-Patterns 2 and 5 argue the same point (never present an ungraded register/tech-debt pick with rubric-sorted confidence) in near-duplicate form. This fits 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the 4 anchor, whose over-explanation is only minor and incidental rather than systematic across a ~60-line Anti-Patterns section.

Actionability

Every sweep has a copy-paste-ready command ("find .context -name '*.md' | wc -l", "grep -il 'status: active' .context/follow-ups/*.md", "grep -c '| Open ' docs/RISK_REGISTER.md docs/TECH_DEBT.md"), prerequisites list exact paths, step 2a fully specifies the sort (severity CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW, then priority P1/P2/P3, then newest date, then path, case-insensitive) including edge handling for missing/partial/invalid grades, and the report format is pinned to a worked example plus blank template in references/worked-example.md. This matches 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases' rather than the 4 anchor, which anticipates gaps in the guidance.

Workflow Clarity

Six steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint and recovery loop up front (step 1 freshness check: compare index header count to actual file count, and "If the result diverges meaningfully from the index's own header comment, run context-index first"), and branching is handled explicitly at each step ("If none are ACTIVE, say so explicitly and continue anyway (Rule 2)"; ungraded follow-ups listed separately with a count). The skill is read-only by design, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply. This matches the 5 anchor ('Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery') rather than the 4 anchor, which requires minor validation gaps; the '2a' step numbering is slightly irregular but the sequence and cross-references remain unambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

Both body references resolve to real bundle files (references/backlog-triage-and-ranking.md and references/worked-example.md, verified present), are one level deep and self-contained (the triage reference explicitly says it exists so the workflow 'doesn't have to re-read either source in full', with the canonical instructions dir noted only as an authority pointer, not a required navigation hop), and are well-signaled both inline at point of use (steps 2, 5, and the intro) and in a References table with When-to-Use columns. SKILL.md stays the overview while disposal logic and the report format are appropriately split out. This matches 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation' rather than the 4 anchor, which requires organization gaps.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete actions -- "lists every ACTIVE follow-up entry, assesses whether it's still genuinely open, and recommends the single best next item to work on -- pulling in open RISK_REGISTER and TECH_DEBT rows and the value-rubric's ranked PLAN/FINDING/KNOWN_ISSUE candidates" -- plus an explicit negative boundary ("Does NOT promote, close, or otherwise edit anything"). This matches the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' rather than the 4 anchor, which requires minor gaps in coverage; none are evident.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is the read-only status check with its three concrete actions and multi-source fallthrough, and 'when' is an explicit 'Triggers:' clause with concrete trigger phrases. The description uses third person throughout ('lists', 'assesses', 'recommends'), so no voice penalty applies. This matches the 5 anchor ('Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases') rather than the 4 anchor, whose 'when' is weaker or less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Triggers:' clause gives seven natural phrases a user would actually say: '/follow-up', 'check follow-ups', "what's open", "what should I work on next", 'follow-up status check', 'next best item', "what's still open" -- covering the command, the status question, and the next-item question with synonym variations. This fits 'Comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms' rather than the 4 anchor ('a few natural terms missing'); the only additional variants appear in the body, not the description, but the listed set is already complete for how this skill would be invoked.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche (read-only status check) and explicitly demarcates the four adjacent write skills: "Does NOT promote, close, or otherwise edit anything -- it reports and recommends, then applies follow-up-triage's own flow directly or hands off to the risk-register / tech-debt / plan-create skills for the actual write." This matches the 5 anchor ('Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'); the 4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' is pre-empted by the explicit handoff boundary.