Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes competence — "`get_why` has four modes — pick by what you pass", no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5: the 'Reviewing candidates' section is one dense paragraph packing seven commands and could be trimmed or split.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance: `get_why(query="why is auth using JWT?")` with all four call modes shown concretely, and complete CLI invocations like `repowise decision add --agent <your slug> --title "..." --decision "..." --rationale "<why, and what you rejected>" --affects <path>` and `repowise decision confirm <id> --agent <your slug> --evidence <commit|file>` covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Scenario-keyed sections give clear sequences, e.g. "1. Call `get_why(query="the specific area you're changing")`... 2. If decisions are found, present them to the user before proceeding... 3. If no decisions are found, proceed but note..." — a real checkpoint, plus refusal handling ("If the repository turned agent acceptance off, the confirm is refused; leave it for a person"). Not 5: the candidates-review flow is prose rather than a sequenced list and its checkpoints (checking `blockers`, resolving, confirming) are implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed; the ~61-line body is organized into clear, well-labeled sections keyed to usage triggers, which is good structure. Not 5: it sits just above the simple-skill (~50-line) range and the monolithic 'Reviewing candidates' paragraph is a candidate for being broken out or restructured.

Specificity

The description names the domain and concrete trigger scenarios ("asks why code is built a certain way", "proposes architectural changes", "compares implementation approaches"), but no capability actions are ever stated — there is no 'what the skill does' equivalent to 'extract text and fill forms'. This matches anchor 3 (domain plus some concrete elements, not comprehensive) rather than 4, which requires several specific actions.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and detailed ("Use when a task asks why..."), but the 'what' is never stated — the capability of the skill is only inferable. Anchor 2 ("only 'when' is present without 'what'") fits textually, but the domain-specific, multi-clause 'when' with named markers keeps it above that level; anchor 4 requires both what and when explicitly, which is not met.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: "why code is built a certain way", "architectural changes", "compares implementation approaches", plus literal markers "WHY, DECISION, TRADEOFF, or ADR". Not 5 because common synonyms a user would actually say — 'design decisions', 'rationale', 'trade-offs', 'refactor' — are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"in a Repowise-indexed repository" and the marker list ("WHY, DECISION, TRADEOFF, or ADR") create a clear niche, but "proposes architectural changes, compares implementation approaches" are broad triggers that overlap general design-review and code-review skills — minor conflict risk, matching anchor 4.