Conciseness

The body is lean and rule-dense ("Core rule: do not optimize for 'code changed'; optimize for 'DoD proven'"), with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the sub-skills aside ("the legacy names deploy-dev, pr-watch, pr-review-autopilot, and git-ship are not available in AAS") is environment-specific meta-commentary that could be trimmed, and the State Machine list partially duplicates the Workflow section; not 3 because verbosity is minor, not 'some unnecessary explanation'.

Actionability

Concrete elements exist ("max iteration rounds = 2", "wait 3m then 6m then 10m", the Output Contract fields, enumerated human gates), matching 'some concrete guidance'. But three of six workflow steps delegate to undefined artifacts — "Use create-issue-gate logic", "Hand off to closed-loop-delivery", "require verification-before-completion" — none of which are bundled or summarized, leaving key execution details missing. This fits anchor 3 ('incomplete... missing key details') rather than 4.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow has explicit validation checkpoints ("Before any claim of completion, require verification-before-completion", "No success claim without fresh evidence"), feedback loops (review polling rounds, "DoD still fails after 2 full rounds" → escalate), and checklists (Stop Conditions, Human Gates, Output Contract). Destructive/batch operations are covered by human gates, so the destructive-cap does not apply. This matches anchor 5 ('explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists').

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: well-separated sections (Inputs, State Machine, Workflow, Stop Conditions, Human Gates, Output Contract) with nothing that clearly belongs in a separate file inlined — the skill is self-contained at ~113 lines, so no external references are needed. Not 5 because it exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill exception and the Required Sub-Skills are named as external dependencies without paths or links; not 3 because organization is clear and easy to navigate.

Specificity

Quotes: "driven end-to-end from issue intake through implementation, review, deployment, and acceptance verification" — several concrete pipeline stages are named, matching the anchor 'Lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'. Not 5 because coverage stops at stage names without naming the gating/escalation actions the body performs; not 3 because it names well more than 1-2 concrete activities.

Completeness

Both parts are present: what — "driven end-to-end from issue intake through implementation, review, deployment, and acceptance verification"; when — "Use when a coding task should be driven end-to-end... with minimal human re-intervention". Not 5 because the 'when' is a single scenario rather than multiple concrete trigger phrases (compare the anchor-5 example's 'Use when working with PDF files or when the user mentions PDFs, forms, or document extraction'); not 3 because both what and when are explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: "coding task", "end-to-end", "implementation, review, deployment", "acceptance verification", "minimal human re-intervention" — good coverage of natural terms a user would say (implementation, review, deploy, verify, end-to-end). Not 5 because common synonyms like "DoD", "definition of done", "issue", "ship it", or "close the loop" are absent; not 3 because coverage goes beyond a few generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: "issue intake through implementation, review, deployment, and acceptance verification", "minimal human re-intervention" — a clear orchestration niche distinct from generic coding helpers. Not 5 because the broad 'coding task' domain still overlaps with other delivery/automation skills (e.g. a closed-loop-delivery or code-review skill); not 3 because the acceptance-verification framing is fairly distinctive.