Conciseness

The body is dense, procedural and assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations), matching the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor — e.g. "A fabricated external value passes every local check, because tests, types and lint never look outward" and the "This skill has no relay" rationale sentence could be trimmed. Not 5 because the Host notes section and a handful of why-explanations carry tokens a tighter version would cut; not 3 because there is no padding and nothing explains what Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands appear throughout ("git status --porcelain", "BASELINE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)", "CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff $BASELINE_SHA..HEAD --name-only)"), Dispatch blocks carry complete prompts with explicit per-host mappings, and commit-convention discovery lists exact file paths (".claude/skills/commit/SKILL.md", "commitlint.config.*") — the 'mostly executable guidance' anchor. Not 5 because the behavior of the three specialist agents (sdd-fact-checker etc.) is defined outside this file, leaving a minor gap in what each pass actually does.

Workflow Clarity

Sections §0–§8 form a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints at every stage — the §2 tree check, the §3 verification gate ("If they cannot be made to pass... do not commit"), the §4 dirty-file check before staging, and per-pass result states with ask-the-developer feedback loops — and §8's status lines encode exactly which passes ran. This matches the top anchor: explicit validation, feedback loops, and a checklist-style summary; not 4 because no checkpoint is left implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well organized into labeled sections and ends with a clearly signaled References section describing what each linked file contains ("upstream workflow guide, including failure paths", "upstream rationale"), both one level deep — the 'good structure; references mostly clear' anchor. Not 5 because the two references live outside the bundle at host-absolute paths (~/.agents/skills/implement-plan/references/...) rather than alongside the skill; not 3 because nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined and navigation is easy.

Specificity

Names several concrete actions — "Make a small change in the main session" plus the three named review passes ("fact, standards and final") — matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because committing, verification and the summary are unmentioned and "small change" leaves the change type vague; not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (implement in the main session, then three sequential review passes), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so the when is only weakly implied — matching the guideline cap of 3. Not 4 because no explicit usage condition appears anywhere in the description.

Trigger Term Quality

"small change" is a phrase users naturally say, but common variations ("quick fix", "minor edit", "tweak", "one-line change") are absent and "isolated... passes" is internal workflow jargon users would not utter — the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor. Not 4 because only one strong natural trigger term exists.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-pass isolated-review framing carves a fairly distinct niche versus generic code-review or planning skills, with only minor overlap risk ("review" could collide with review skills; sibling to a write-plan skill). Not 5 because "small change" plus "review" still overlaps broadly with ordinary review requests.