Conciseness

The body is ~24 lines where every line instructs: a one-line purpose, delegation to a named skill, URL handling, an executable detection command, and a closing action. There is no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 4 because there are no instances of over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

"gh pr view --json url --jq '.url'" is concrete and executable, and delegating to the named `resolve-review-feedback` skill is a specific, actionable instruction. It falls short of 5 because "Then process unresolved comments for that PR" gives no concrete steps for the core action and relies entirely on the delegated skill.

Workflow Clarity

The conditional sequence is clear: pass a provided PR/comment URL through, otherwise detect the branch's PR with the gh command, then process unresolved comments. It is not 5 because there are no validation checkpoints written in this file (e.g., confirming comments exist or verifying fixes before resolving), and not 3 because the sequence itself is complete and unambiguous for a simple wrapper skill.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no external reference files needed, and its sections are well organized. Its only pointer — "Use the existing `resolve-review-feedback` skill for the detailed implementation workflow" — is a clearly signaled, one-level-deep delegation. No bundle files exist to reference, so nothing is inlined that belongs elsewhere.

Specificity

"Address GitHub PR review comments at line, file, and PR level by fetching, evaluating, fixing, committing, and resolving feedback" lists five concrete actions plus explicit scope levels (line, file, PR), comprehensively covering the workflow. It is not score 4 because coverage has no minor gaps — the full lifecycle from fetching to resolving is enumerated.

Completeness

The what is explicit ("fetching, evaluating, fixing, committing, and resolving feedback" at three levels) and the when is explicit with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when invoked as `$pr-resolve-review-feedback` or when the user asks to resolve PR feedback"). Both anchors of the question are clearly answered, matching the top example's structure.

Trigger Term Quality

"PR review comments", "resolve PR feedback", and the explicit invocation name give good natural keyword coverage users would actually say. It falls short of 5 because common variations like "pull request" (spelled out), "address review comments", or "review feedback" synonyms are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (GitHub PR review resolution), but "when the user asks to resolve PR feedback" overlaps almost exactly with the sibling `resolve-review-feedback` skill this skill delegates to — a minor conflict risk with a closely related skill. It is not 3 because the invocation-name trigger and GitHub PR scoping keep it mostly distinct from unrelated skills.