Conciseness

Every line is an instruction: input selection ('git diff --cached', 'git diff <range>'), rule application ('apply each rule's Detect: and Not-when: verbatim'), and an output format. There is zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It is not 4 because there is nothing left to trim — every token earns its place.

Actionability

Fully concrete and executable: exact git commands, an exact rule-directory path (.claude/sound/), explicit rule fields (Detect:/Not-when:), a literal report template ('- <file>: <rule or enhancement> — <anchor>'), and a defined null output ('CLEAN'). It is not 4 because there are no gaps — the guidance covers the common cases (no argument, a range, missing rules dir) copy-paste ready.

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence is laid out across sections — choose input, read the applicable rules, apply them (honoring Not-when:), report most-consequential first — with an explicit checkpoint ('If .claude/sound/ is absent, say so and stop'). It is not 5 because the sequence is implicit in section order rather than explicitly enumerated, and what to do with the individual commits of a range (vs. the aggregate diff) is left slightly ambiguous. This is a read-only review, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well under 50 lines, has no bundle files needing external references, and is cleanly organized into 'What to read' and 'How to review' sections — the simple-skill case where well-organized sections alone merit a 5. The one external pointer (.claude/sound/) is runtime project data, correctly referenced inline at one level deep rather than duplicated.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("staged diff or a commit range") and one concrete action ("reviewing ... for soundness against the project's taste rules"), but stops at that single action. It is not 4 because it does not list several specific actions (e.g., what the review produces or how findings are reported); it is not 2 because the domain and action are concrete, not generic.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the "what" ("reviewing ... for soundness against the project's taste rules") and an explicit "Use when ..." trigger clause with concrete conditions. It is not 5 because the "what" is thin — it never states what the review actually does (surface rule violations, report findings) — and is embedded entirely inside the when-clause; it is not 3 because "when" is explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases users would say are present: "staged diff", "commit range", "pre-commit pass", and the explicit "sound review". It is not 5 because common synonyms and variations ("review my changes", "diff", "review this commit/PR", "taste rules") are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Terms like "soundness", "project's taste rules", and "sound review" carve a distinct niche that separates it from generic review skills. It is not 5 because "reviewing a staged diff or a commit range" still overlaps with general code-review/diff-review skills, creating minor conflict risk.