Conciseness

Every token is Repowise-specific with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but it could be tightened: the two-bullet intro duplicates the "Score the whole change first" section, the `repowise risk <revspec>` CLI equivalent is stated twice nearly verbatim ("The `repowise risk <revspec>` CLI is the identical scorer" and "The equivalent from a terminal is `repowise risk <revspec>`"), and the `tests_to_run` bullet inlines dense field-by-field API detail. Mostly efficient with some redundancy — anchor 3.

Actionability

Fully concrete invocations with parameters cover the common cases: `get_change_risk(revspec="main..HEAD")`, `get_risk(targets=<changed files>, changed_files=<same changed files>)`, `get_why(query="<file>")`, `get_health(targets=..., include=["biomarkers"])`, plus terminal paths `gh pr diff <number>`, `git diff --name-only main...HEAD`, and `repowise impacted-tests <revspec>` with `--format list | xargs pytest`. Placeholders like `<changed files>` are inherently variable and appropriately used.

Workflow Clarity

The headers impose an explicit sequence ("Score the whole change first" → "Then drill into the per-file directive" → "Then go deeper where it matters"), with decision checkpoints ("read `directive` first", "Check `tests_run_all` first", a `warning` field or `unknown` status means an all-zero score is not a clean bill of health) and an error-recovery feedback path (if `get_risk` errors, review from the raw diff and note Repowise was unavailable, suggesting `/prompts:repowise-init`). This is read-only analysis, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the ~115-line body is well-organized under clear section headers with a logical overview-to-detail flow. Not 5 because all content is inlined — the field-level semantics of `tests_to_run`, `tests_run_all`, `tests_to_run_basis`, and `impacted_tests` read like API-reference material that could live in a one-level-deep reference file; not 3 because structure and placement are otherwise good with nothing buried.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("reviewing a set of changes before they merge") and enumerates target contexts ("a PR, a branch diff, or the working-tree changes"), but the only action stated is the generic "reviewing" — concrete capabilities like risk scoring or blast-radius analysis are only hinted at via a quoted user phrase. Per the guidelines, the second-person clause "the working-tree changes you just made" reduces the score by 1 from a base of 3.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the "what" ("reviewing a set of changes before they merge") and an exceptionally explicit "when" ("Use when..." plus "Activates for" four concrete trigger phrases). Not 5 because the "what" stays generic — it never states what the skill actually does (risk scoring, impacted-test selection, blast-radius analysis) the way the anchor-5 example lists concrete actions.

Trigger Term Quality

Quoted phrases "review this PR", "is this safe to merge", "what is the blast radius of these changes", and "did I miss anything" are natural things a user would say, alongside "PR", "branch diff", and "working-tree". Not 5 because common variations like "code review", "review my changes", or "review the diff" are missing; not 3 because coverage goes well beyond a couple of generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "Repowise-indexed repository" scoping and "blast radius" phrasing give it a niche, but the triggers "review this PR", "is this safe to merge", and "did I miss anything" would equally fire for any generic code-review skill, creating real overlap risk. Not 4 because that overlap is more than minor; not 2 because the Repowise tie is genuinely distinguishing.