Conciseness

The body is lean and command-driven: every section is a copy-paste example or a non-obvious operational caveat (version check, --add-sub-issue move semantics, blocked-by/blocking duality). It explains nothing Claude already knows — anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; every token earns its place'). Not anchor 4 because there are no sections that could be trimmed without losing real information.

Actionability

Every instruction is an executable, copy-paste-ready gh command with concrete issue numbers, covering create/edit/add/remove for all four relationship types plus human-readable, grep-able, and JSON inspection modes. This matches anchor 5 ('fully executable; copy-paste ready; specific examples cover the common cases') and exceeds anchor 4, which tolerates minor gaps — the version-capability preflight check even guards executability.

Workflow Clarity

The 'Safe workflow' section gives a clear 4-step sequence including an explicit verification step ('Verify with gh issue view ... --json parent,subIssues,...'), satisfying the batch-operation validation requirement that would otherwise cap the score at 3. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no feedback loop — no instruction for what to do when verification shows the link is wrong or the command fails.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a single-purpose skill with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and no content that warrants external files; the ~147-line body is a well-organized reference with clearly headed sections (reference format, parent/sub-issues, blocked-by/blocking, inspection, safe workflow). Per the simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections with no need for external references score 5; navigation is trivial and nothing is buried.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('GitHub Issues 2.0 relationships with gh CLI') and enumerates four concrete relationship types ('parent issues, sub-issues, blocked-by, and blocking links'), but uses only one generic action verb ('Manage') rather than multiple specific actions like create/edit/remove. It matches anchor 4 ('lists several specific actions; minor gaps') better than anchor 5, which expects multiple distinct concrete action verbs with comprehensive coverage.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (manage parent/sub-issue/blocked-by/blocking relationships via gh CLI) but there is no 'when' — no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance in the description, which the judging guidelines explicitly cap at 3. The 'Use this skill when creating, editing...' sentence exists only in the body, not in the description field, so per 'score only what is explicitly stated' it cannot count here.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords users would say: 'parent issues', 'sub-issues', 'blocked-by', 'blocking', 'GitHub Issues'. A few natural phrasings are missing — 'link issues', 'issue dependencies', 'epic', 'task breakdown' — so it falls short of anchor 5's 'comprehensive coverage including synonyms'. It is clearly above anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations') because the core relationship vocabulary is present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Issues 2.0 relationship niche (parent/sub-issue/blocked-by/blocking links) is a distinct specialty with minimal overlap against generic issue-creation or gh-CLI skills; only 'gh CLI' and 'GitHub Issues' overlap broadly. Anchor 5 requires a clear niche with minimal conflict risk — the terms 'manage' and 'gh CLI' alone could pull in general issue-editing requests, so anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills') is the best fit.