Conciseness

When-to-review triggers are stated three times ('When to Request Review', 'Integration with Workflows', and the worked example), and 'Red Flags' repeats the triage rules from 'Act on feedback' (e.g. Critical/Important handling, push-back guidance). The body is mostly efficient but these redundant sections mean it could be tightened noticeably — anchor 3 rather than 4.

Actionability

Concrete bash commands (git rev-parse for BASE/HEAD SHAs), named placeholders with definitions, a specific tool/type ('task' tool, 'general-purpose' type), and severity-based triage make the guidance mostly executable. The gap keeping it from 5: the pivotal reviewer prompt template lives in 'code-reviewer.md', which is not present in the bundle, so the dispatch step cannot be executed as written.

Workflow Clarity

The three-step sequence (get SHAs → dispatch reviewer → act on feedback) is explicit and numbered, with severity checkpoints (fix Critical immediately, Important before proceeding), fix-before-continue rules, and a disagreement/recovery protocol — matching the clear-sequence-with-explicit-checkpoints-and-feedback-loops anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers are clear and the single external reference is plainly signaled ('fill template at code-reviewer.md', 'See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md'), but that file does not exist anywhere in the bundle — navigation dead-ends at exactly the point where the needed detail lives. A dangling reference is more than the 'minor organization gaps' of anchor 4, so it sits at anchor 3.

Specificity

The description names workflow milestones ('completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging') but its only action phrase, 'verify work meets requirements', is generic — it never states the concrete capability (dispatching a code-review subagent against a diff). This matches anchor 2 (domain named, actions minimal/generic) rather than 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit ('Use when completing tasks... or before merging') but the 'what' is only a vague purpose clause ('verify work meets requirements') with no statement of what the skill actually does. It exceeds anchor 2 ('only when present without what') yet falls short of anchor 4's concrete both-what-and-when.

Trigger Term Quality

'before merging' and 'implementing major features' are natural workflow triggers, but the phrases users would most naturally say — 'code review', 'review my changes', 'review the diff' — are absent. Some relevant keywords with missing common variations fits anchor 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'verify work' and 'completing tasks' are broad enough to overlap with testing, QA, and general verification skills, though the merge context narrows the field — 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' fits anchor 3.