Conciseness

Mostly procedural with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but noticeably repetitive: the planning boundary is stated in the opening paragraph and again almost verbatim in Guardrails; --store handling is explained in the Store selection paragraph, then repeated in steps 2 and 3; "re-read dependencies from disk, not conversation memory" appears twice. Fits the "mostly efficient but could be tightened" anchor rather than the "minor instances" of score 4.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact commands ("openspec new change \"<name>\" --schema \"<schema-name>\"", "openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change \"<name>\" --json"), the JSON fields to parse (applyRequires, requires edges, resolvedOutputPath), and per-artifact verification. Copy-paste ready and covers the common cases including store selection and skipped artifacts.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (re-run "openspec status --change \"<name>\" --json" after each artifact, verify the file exists at resolvedOutputPath), error-recovery paths (skipped/blocked artifacts, unclear input, existing change name), and a final status step. Matches the top anchor's feedback loops and checkpoint structure.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so everything lives in one SKILL.md; that is appropriate for a cohesive multi-step workflow, and sections (Store selection, Steps, Artifact Creation Guidelines, Guardrails) are clearly headed and easy to navigate. Not 5 because some inline material (the long store-selection rules and duplicated boundary statements) could be consolidated or moved out, leaving minor organization gaps.

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete deliverables ("complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation") plus the action "Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step". Not 5 because "change" is domain jargon left unpacked and the actions around each artifact are not elaborated; not 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step") and when ("Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build and get a complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation") with concrete trigger phrasing, matching the top anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say ("describe what they want to build", "proposal", "design, specs, and tasks", "ready for implementation"). Good coverage but a few natural synonyms (e.g. "plan this change", "spec it out") and the product name "openspec" are missing, so it falls just short of the comprehensive anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The change/proposal/specs/tasks cluster carves a distinct planning niche with minimal conflict risk, but "change" and "proposal" are generic words and "openspec" is never named, leaving minor overlap risk with generic planning or roadmap skills.