Conciseness

The body is dense operational guidance with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the instructions-archive contract (lines 35-60) is repetitive — the 'never copy verbatim' / 'prompt-level contracts, not enforceable checks' rules are restated in the section, again mid-step, and again in Guardrails — and the store-selection paragraph explains the same flag rule twice. This fits anchor 3, 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not anchor 4 because the repetition is more than minor.

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands appear throughout ('openspec status --change "<name>" --json', 'openspec list --json', 'mkdir -p "<planningHome.changesDir>/archive"', 'mv "<changeRoot>" ...') alongside explicit prompt options and answer routing. It stops short of anchor 5 because the delta-spec comparison and the inline 'openspec-sync-specs' workflow invocation are described in prose rather than as runnable commands or a referenced, complete procedure.

Workflow Clarity

The six steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (artifact status check, task-count check, mandatory post-sync re-verification of every capability against the delta, 'report what differs and stop — do not archive') and error-recovery loops for the destructive mv of changeRoot. The destructive-operation validation cap is satisfied, and this matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are strictly needed for this workflow; the body is well-sectioned (Store selection, Input, numbered Steps, Output template, Guardrails) and easy to navigate. It is anchor 4 rather than 5 because the ~26-line instructions-archive behavioral contract and the dense store-selection paragraph are inline material that could be split into a one-level-deep reference file to slim the always-loaded overview.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('completed change in the experimental workflow') and one concrete action ('Archive'), roughly matching anchor 3's 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions'. It does not list the several sub-actions the body performs (completion checks, spec sync, moving the change), so it falls short of anchor 4 while being more concrete than anchor 2's generic minimal action.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both parts: 'Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow' states what, and 'Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete' gives a concrete, explicit when-clause that is stronger than anchor 4's example, matching anchor 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('archive', 'finalize', 'completed change', 'implementation is complete') but common variations a user might naturally say ('done', 'finished', 'wrap up', 'move to archive') are missing, fitting anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoping to 'the experimental workflow' and 'change' gives it a clear niche with distinct triggers, though the overloaded word 'archive' leaves minor overlap risk with generic file-archiving skills — anchor 4, not anchor 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.