Conciseness

The SOLID Checklist table, the five Workflow steps, and the reference file all restate the same per-principle checks, refactor signals, and rg commands (e.g., the identical "class.*Service.*Repository" search appears in both Quick Commands and references/review-checklist.md). Content is mostly efficient but the triple-stated signals are more than minor padding, fitting the could-be-tightened anchor.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste rg commands in Quick Commands, per-principle refactor signals in the table, and concrete violation/refactor/validation example blocks for every step covering the common cases. This matches the 5 anchor for an instruction-plus-code skill.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps each declare an Output, questions to ask, and an example including a Validation line. It stops short of the 5 anchor because the workflow itself lacks an explicit feedback loop (re-check after refactor, escalate on ambiguity) — validation is shown in examples and the reference's output format rather than as an instructed step.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview with a References table giving a one-level-deep, real, well-signaled reference (references/review-checklist.md). It fits the 4 anchor rather than 5 because significant content (candidate searches, judgement guidance, step questions) is duplicated between SKILL.md and the reference instead of being split cleanly.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Apply SOLID principles (SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP) for tactical class design, method extraction, and interface definition" — naming the domain and specific sub-activities. It falls short of the 5 anchor because the actions are framed at a design-activity level rather than a fully enumerated set of concrete operations.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Apply SOLID principles... for tactical class design, method extraction, and interface definition") and when ("Use when reviewing class design, refactoring code for maintainability, or designing interfaces and abstractions"). Both are concrete and explicit, matching the 5 anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when reviewing class design, refactoring code for maintainability, or designing interfaces and abstractions" provides natural phrases users would say, plus the SOLID acronym and principle abbreviations. A few common variations (e.g., "code review", "coupling", "testability") are missing, so it matches the good-coverage-with-gaps anchor rather than the comprehensive one.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

SOLID is a distinct, well-known niche with named principle triggers, giving minimal conflict risk. However, phrases like "refactoring code for maintainability" overlap with general refactoring and design skills, so it is mostly distinct rather than a clear isolated niche.