Conciseness

The body teaches nothing Claude already knows and contains no filler — every line is recipe instruction — but dense nominal-legalese ('Derive implementationFiles from paths changed between the current branch's merge base with the repository's default branch and the current repository state, including committed changes, working-tree changes, and untracked files') and duplicated passages (Steps 8 and 9 repeat an identical re-derivation preamble; the Review Resolution Gate is re-invoked four times) leave real tightening on the table. Mostly efficient but could be tightened: anchor 3, not 4, because the tightening opportunities exceed 'minor instances'.

Actionability

Every agent call carries concrete subagent_type, description, and prompt fields; Step 4 supplies an explicit routing table and a shaped report block; Step 7 defines enumerated result-routing values (pass / stub_detected / verification_incomplete / blocked). Minor gaps: several steps defer to other skills' rules ('Review Resolution Gate', 'Specialist Result Acceptance', the 'Re-run rule') without even a one-line inline summary of what those rules decide. Mostly executable guidance with minor gaps: anchor 4, not 5, because executing some steps requires loading external skill content not summarized here.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–10 run in order with each branch gated by a stated condition ('Run this step only when the user routed at least one finding to d'), explicit validation/re-validation steps (Steps 8–9), retry-with-same-inputs feedback loops for retained limitations, stub-detection recovery back to Step 6, and declared convergence conditions before progression. Matches anchor 5: clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops for error recovery; not 4 because no material checkpoint is missing.

Progressive Disclosure

The 200-line recipe is inline under clear per-step headers, its single file mention (references/review-resolution.md) is explicitly and correctly attributed to the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill rather than buried, and no local bundle files exist to organize. Good structure with minor gaps: anchor 4, not 3, because sections are well-signaled and navigable; not 5 because a recipe this size keeps large report templates and routing/adjudication rules inline where a one-level reference file could carry them.

Specificity

Names the domain (completed implementation review) and several distinct actions — governing-source compliance, repository quality, security review, and applying user-approved corrections — though 'governing-source compliance' and 'scope economy' read as internal jargon rather than fully concrete capabilities. Falls between anchors 3 and 4: several specific actions with minor gaps in coverage, not the comprehensive concreteness of anchor 5.

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' ('Reviews completed implementation for... then applies user-approved corrections') but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 2 because the 'what' is clear and multi-part rather than vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains some relevant keywords ('implementation', 'security', 'corrections', 'repository quality') but is missing the natural phrases a user would actually say ('review my implementation', 'post-implementation check', 'review the PR before merge') and any synonyms or variations. Matches anchor 3; not 4 because keyword coverage lacks natural terms rather than having only a few missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The post-implementation review framing is somewhat specific, but 'repository quality and security' review territory overlaps with generic code-review skills, so it could still trigger for the wrong skill. Matches anchor 3; not 4 because the overlap with closely related review skills is more than minor.