Conciseness

Every line is load-bearing — e.g., "Stage only named files or hunks. No `git add .` / `git add -A`." — and the body assumes Claude's git competence, never re-explaining what PRs, stashing, or CODEOWNERS are. Matches the lean-and-efficient anchor 5; there is no padding to trim.

Actionability

The snapshot block (`git stash create "pre-split"`, `git update-ref "refs/backup/pre-split-$(date +%s)"`) is complete, executable, and even handles the no-uncommitted-work case, and staging rules are concrete. Not 5 because the hardest mechanism — "create a branch from the right base, stage and commit only the planned files or hunks" from a possibly dirty tree — is left as high-level direction with no concrete recipe (e.g., how to commit specific hunks non-interactively); mostly executable with minor gaps, anchor 4.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered 1-4 sequence with explicit checkpoints: the approval gate ("Do not create branches, commit, push, or open PRs until the user approves the split plan", "Ask for approval before starting"), the pre-split snapshot, and the report-back step surfacing leftovers. Not 5 because there are no error-recovery feedback loops and no per-slice verification (e.g., checking a slice's diff contains only planned files before pushing); anchor 4 with minor validation gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines, needs no external references (none exist in the bundle), and is cleanly organized into Hard rules plus four numbered sections. Per the simple-skill guidance, this earns anchor 5 on well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

Names the domain and one concrete action — "Split current work into small reviewable PRs" — but enumerates no sub-actions (branching, staging, opening PRs), matching the "names domain and 1-2 concrete actions" anchor. Not 4 because several specific actions are not listed; not 2 because the action named is concrete, not generic.

Completeness

"Split current work into small reviewable PRs" clearly states the what, and "Use when the user asks to split a chat, set of changes, branch, or PR" explicitly states the when with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5. Not 4 because the when-clause is already explicit and specific rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when the user asks to split a chat, set of changes, branch, or PR" covers the natural terms "split", "branch", and "PR" plus input variations. Not 5 because common synonyms are missing — "pull request" never appears spelled out, nor "break up"/"divide" — matching anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"small reviewable PRs" and the chat/changes/branch/PR split triggers carve a clear PR-splitting niche that no generic git or review skill would claim, matching anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers, minimal conflict risk). Not 4 because no closely related skill plausibly overlaps with these triggers.