Conciseness

The body is mostly operational with no basic-concept padding, but the context/operationGuidance contract in step 3 ("Read and consider it... They are not evidence of task completion...") and the Guardrails section restate the same rules nearly verbatim ("Do not use context or operation guidance as proof that a task is complete", "Do not copy runtime context or operation guidance into implementation files"). Not 2 because there is no explanation of known concepts and most directives are lean; not 4 because the duplication exceeds minor trimming.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags ("openspec status --change \"<name>\" --json", "openspec instructions apply --change \"<name>\" --json", "openspec list --json", "openspec store list --json"), exact edit syntax ("- [ ]\u2192 - [x]"), explicit state handling (blocked/all_done), and concrete output templates. Not 4 because the commands and examples cover the common paths (named change, inferred, ambiguous, blocked, all done); "Make the code changes required" is appropriately task-defined rather than vague.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with upfront state validation (parse status JSON, handle blocked/all_done before acting), explicit feedback loops for error recovery (pause on unclear task, design issues, errors; report and wait), loop-until-done semantics, a guardrail checklist, and end-of-session status reporting. Not 4 because checkpoints are present at entry, per-task, and exit; the workflow's state checks and pause conditions serve as the validation for its batch task loop.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized single-file body with clear headers (Store selection, Input, Steps, Output During/On Completion/On Pause, Guardrails, Fluid Workflow Integration) and no buried or nested references; no bundle files exist, and nothing strictly requires one. Not 5 because at ~170 lines with three full output templates plus a store-selection mechanics paragraph, it exceeds a lean overview and parts (output templates, store rules) could be consolidated or split out.

Specificity

"Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change" names the domain and one concrete action, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It is below 4 because it does not enumerate several specific actions (e.g., reading proposal/specs/tasks artifacts, editing code, checking off tasks), and above 2 because the action is concrete and domain-anchored rather than generic.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change") and when ("Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor. Not 4, because the when-clause is explicit and specific rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

"start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks" are natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of 5 because common synonyms are missing, such as "apply the change", "do the tasks", or "work on the change".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenSpec change" carves a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against unrelated skills. Not 5, because the trigger clause omits "OpenSpec", so generic requests like "work through tasks" or "continue implementation" could loosely match non-OpenSpec task skills; not 3, because the domain term keeps overlap minor.