Conciseness

The body is dense and operational with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but there is repetition to trim: the planning boundary is stated in both the opening paragraph and Guardrails, the re-read-from-disk rule appears in step 5a and Guardrails, and the store-selection paragraph is wordy. Efficient with minor instances of over-explanation fits 4; not 5 because of this duplicated content.

Actionability

Every step has copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags (openspec new change "<name>" --schema "<schema-name>", openspec status --change "<name>" --json, openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json), the JSON fields to parse are named, and the user prompts and progress strings are given verbatim. Fully executable guidance covering the common cases matches the 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (re-run openspec status --json after each artifact; "Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next"), feedback loops for error recovery (skipped/blocked/missing artifact handling, user-clarification loop), todo-list tracking, and explicit stop conditions. This matches the 5 anchor; not 4 because no validation checkpoint is missing.

Progressive Disclosure

A single ~137-line SKILL.md with no bundle files: it is well-sectioned with clear headers, but dense inline content (store-selection semantics, the required-set/dependency-walk rules in step 5b) sits in SKILL.md rather than being split into reference files. Some structure but content that should be separate is inline fits 3; not 4 because there are no references and separable content is inlined, not 2 because the structure is good and navigable.

Specificity

"Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step" names concrete actions and enumerates the deliverables ("design, specs, and tasks"), matching the several-specific-actions anchor with minor gaps in coverage. It falls short of 5 because it does not comprehensively cover the workflow's actions, and exceeds 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions by listing the full artifact set.

Completeness

It 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..."), but the when-clause is a scenario description rather than sharp, concrete trigger phrases. Both present with a when that could be more explicit places it at 4, not 5, and clearly above 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "describe what they want to build", "proposal", and "design, specs, and tasks" give good keyword coverage, but common variations such as "plan a change", "spec out", or "openspec" are missing. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing fits the 4 anchor better than 3 (partial coverage) or 5 (comprehensive with synonyms).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Domain-specific vocabulary ("change", "proposal", "specs", "tasks" in the openspec sense) carves a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against a sibling apply skill or generic build/plan requests. Not 5 because "describe what they want to build" is broad enough to overlap with general build requests; not 3 because the artifact vocabulary clearly distinguishes it from similar skills.