Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence throughout: it never explains what rebase, Vitest, or CI are, and every sentence carries repo-specific, non-inferable guidance (e.g., "pre-commit fixes staged lint, checks staged whitespace, and guards vendored-source metadata"; "The configured per-file 100% thresholds still apply inside the selected source scope"). This matches the 5 anchor — every token earns its place — and shows none of the 4 anchor's trimmable over-explanation.

Actionability

Nearly all guidance is executable: `git status --short --branch`, `pnpm --silent run change-scope --base <verified-base-ref>`, the full `vitest run ... --coverage.include=...` invocation, `--force-with-lease=<branch>:<observed-oid>`, and `git rev-parse HEAD origin/$(git branch --show-current)` are real, copy-shape-ready commands. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because the vitest and change-scope examples use structural placeholders (`packages/<group>/<package>/...`) with no single fully concrete example invocation covering a common case, and the flexibility is only implicitly justified rather than demonstrated.

Workflow Clarity

Both multi-step workflows are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the push procedure (run checks once → commit and inspect fixer-touched files → push → "Verify the remote ref matches local HEAD" → "Report pending checks as pending") and the post-sync sequence (re-query heads → inspect each rewritten layer → run selected evidence → "Keep every PR unmerged... until all selected checks pass"). Failure handling includes a repair loop ("repair the failure, validate the repair, and publish the correction"), and the destructive force-push path is guarded by lease verification — matching the 5 anchor including its feedback-loop requirement for risky operations.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-structured with clear section headers (Inspect the outgoing change, Select relevant evidence, Full local rehearsal, Protect history-rewriting pushes, Handle failures, Push procedure) and every command inline is core to the flow. It does not reach 5 because the skill exceeds the ~50-line simple-skill case with no bundle files at all: detailed subsections like the coverage-selection mechanics and post-sync validation procedure could be split into one-level-deep references to keep SKILL.md a leaner overview.

Specificity

The description names a concrete core action — "to select the smallest tests and checks that cover the outgoing or just-published diff without reflexively running the full repository suite" — plus concrete operations like "force-pushing" and "after gh stack sync publishes rewritten branches". It falls just below the 5 anchor because it lists essentially one composite action (minimal evidence selection) with many trigger conditions rather than multiple distinct capability actions, and it omits secondary capabilities the body covers (failure handling, lease-protected rewrites).

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: what ("select the smallest tests and checks that cover the outgoing or just-published diff without reflexively running the full repository suite") and when ("Use before pushing, force-pushing, marking ready for review, or claiming checks pass... and immediately after gh stack sync publishes rewritten branches"). This matches the 5 anchor's pattern of an explicit 'Use when'-style clause plus a clear capability statement; the 4 anchor's "when could be more explicit" does not apply here.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural trigger terms: "before pushing", "force-pushing", "marking ready for review", "claiming checks pass", "gh stack sync" — phrases a user on this repository would plausibly say verbatim. It stops short of the 5 anchor's comprehensive synonym coverage: common variations like "run tests before push", "pre-push checks", or "verify the diff" are not present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is tightly scoped to "a deepseek-harness branch" and to repo-specific triggers like "gh stack sync publishes rewritten branches", giving it a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against generic testing or git skills. It is at least as distinct as the 5 anchor's PDF example; the 4 anchor's "minor overlap risk with closely related skills" would only fit if the domain qualifier were absent.