Conciseness

The body is efficient — real commands, no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, no padded prose — matching anchor 4 rather than 5. The three agent prompts each repeat ~6 identical boilerplate lines ("You are reviewing two code solutions side by side... Worktree A/B... Files to compare... Project rules"), and the scorecard table appears in both Step 5 and the Step 6 output template, which could be tightened.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: concrete git commands (merge-base computation, diff --name-only, diff -rq with a head -200 guard), copy-paste-ready agent prompts with explicit fill-in placeholders, a concrete 3x/2x/1x weighting table, and a complete output template. Not 4 because there are no meaningful gaps — the common cases are covered with specific commands.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation: Step 1 validates both worktree paths with a failure branch ("If either path is invalid, report the error and stop") and asks the user for missing paths; Step 3 warns on truncated file lists and suggests narrowing scope; Steps 2 and 5 use checklists (Project Rules Checklist, 15-criterion scorecard); the Proportional constraint scales depth to diff size. This matches anchor 5 — the skill is read-only so destructive-batch caps do not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: the single reference (references/evaluation-criteria.md) exists, is one level deep, and is clearly signaled in both Step 5 ("see references/evaluation-criteria.md") and the Additional Resources section. The 15-criteria scoring detail is appropriately deferred to it while the body keeps only the workflow, matching the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references.

Specificity

The description names the domain and a single action framing — "a structured, criteria-driven comparison of code across two git worktrees" — but lists no concrete capabilities (scoring, verdict, criteria evaluation). It matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive); it is not 4 because it does not enumerate several specific actions, and not 2 because the comparison framing is concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

Both "what" ("structured, criteria-driven comparison of code across two git worktrees") and a very explicit "when" (the long trigger list) are present, matching anchor 4. It falls short of 5 because the "what" is one abstract clause — it never states concrete outcomes like producing a weighted scorecard or an evidence-based verdict.

Trigger Term Quality

Eleven quoted natural trigger phrases with genuine synonym coverage — "compare code", "compare worktrees", "diff worktrees", "best of", "which solution is better", "pick the better implementation", "evaluate solutions" — plus the /best-of command. These are phrases a user would naturally say, matching the comprehensive anchor; there are no missing common variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The two-worktree comparison niche is clear and most triggers ("compare worktrees", "diff worktrees", "best of") are distinct, matching anchor 4. It is not 5 because broad phrases like "compare code", "evaluate solutions", and "review both solutions" could plausibly match a generic code-review skill.