Conciseness

The body is dense and free of concept-explaining filler, but the context/operationGuidance contract is stated in full in Step 3 ("Treat `context` as a required prompt-level input... They are not evidence of task completion...") and then repeated nearly point-for-point in the Guardrails list ("Do not use context or operation guidance as proof that a task is complete", "Apply relevant project context; report conflicts...", "Consider every guidance entry...", "Do not copy runtime context..."). This duplicated block plus the single 150-word Store-selection paragraph could be meaningfully tightened, matching the 3 anchor.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable for an instruction-only skill: copy-paste-ready commands (`openspec status --change "<name>" --json`, `openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json`, `openspec list --json`), a concrete edit operation ("Mark task complete in the tasks file: `- [ ]` → `- [x]`"), explicit state handling for blocked/all_done, and complete output templates for in-progress, completion, and pause. Nothing is pseudocode and the common cases are covered, matching the 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The seven steps are clearly sequenced with state checks up front, explicit pause conditions for error recovery ("Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess"), and a post-session status report, plus a Guardrails checklist. It falls short of 5 because there is no validation checkpoint before marking a task complete — the loop goes straight from "Make the code changes required" to "Mark task complete" without verifying the change (e.g., build/test) succeeded.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed; the single body is well-sectioned (Steps, Output templates, Guardrails, Fluid Workflow Integration) with no nested or buried references, so it clears the monolithic and buried-reference anchors easily. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the ~170-line body has minor organization gaps — the dense unbroken Store-selection paragraph and the repeated context/guidance rules read as inlined content that could be consolidated or trimmed.

Specificity

"Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change" names the domain and essentially one concrete action, matching the anchor for 1-2 actions without comprehensive coverage. It is above score 2 because the action is domain-anchored rather than generic ("Processes PDF files"), but below score 4 because no secondary actions (e.g., reading context files, marking tasks complete) are stated.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the "what" ("Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change") and the "when" ("Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks"). It sits between 4 and 5: the trigger clause is explicit and multi-phrase, but the "what" is a single thin action rather than the comprehensive multi-action coverage of the 5 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

"start implementing", "continue implementation", and "work through tasks" are natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of 5 because common synonyms like "apply a change", "finish the change", or file terms like "tasks.md" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenSpec change" carves out a clear niche, so conflict with unrelated skills is minimal. Minor overlap remains with closely related OpenSpec skills (e.g., a continue-change or apply-change sibling), since "continue implementation" and "work through tasks" could plausibly trigger those too — matching the 4 anchor rather than the fully distinct 5.