The body is lean and explicitly avoids re-documenting shared logic ('Do not re-document the cascade here — that file is the single source of truth'), with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; it is not score 2 because nothing reads as unnecessary explanation.

Gives a concrete dispatch instruction (call the Agent tool with subagent_type 'oh-my-claudecode:code-reviewer' plus a named Claude-only fallback) and copy-paste-ready verdict YAML templates, meeting the executable/specific anchor rather than the pseudocode score-2 case.

The cascade is clearly sequenced (SCOPE GATE -> ABORT -> EXPLICIT FAILURE -> VERIFICATION -> MANDATORY FALLBACK -> HUMAN-APPROVAL) with an explicit fallback checkpoint and failure/abort/waiting verdicts for error recovery, matching the score-3 anchor.

SKILL.md stays an overview and delegates detail to a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (../x-shared/completion-cascade.md) with well-organized sections and no nested indirection; no bundle files exist to contradict this structure.

Names the domain and a couple of actions ('runs the canonical completion cascade with mandatory fallback') but 'completion cascade' is abstract and the action set is not comprehensive, matching the score-2 anchor rather than the multi-action score-3 example.

Explicit 'Use when a long-running skill needs to check "am I done?"' answers when, and 'runs the canonical completion cascade with mandatory fallback...' answers what, satisfying both halves with an explicit trigger.

'am I done?' is a natural phrase a user would say, but it sits alongside jargon ('completion cascade', 'mandatory fallback', 'silent success claims'); coverage of natural variations is partial, so it is not the score-3 broad-coverage case.

The completion-verification niche scoped to long-running skills is distinct, and the 'am I done?' trigger is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills; it does not fall to score 2 because it is more specific than 'Works with document files'.