Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but the 'Hard nevers' section (~10 lines) restates rules already given in-line ('Never reply to a Clear finding', the suppression list, the skip rule, 'never create a stub', round tracking), and the one-way-model bullets repeat dispatcher/STUCK escalation details covered again in 'Contract with the dispatcher'. This matches 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place of score 5.

Actionability

Fully actionable: exact paths and commands are cited ('prds/<feature>/prd.md', 'see references/gh-mechanics.md for the exact commands' — verified to contain copy-paste-ready gh/GraphQL/git commands), each bucket gets an exact action, and the forbidden-suppression list is enumerated down to specific directives ('eslint-disable*', '@ts-ignore', '# noqa', '.skip', 'xfail'). Per the rubric's instruction-skill note, absence of inline code is not penalized when guidance is this concrete.

Workflow Clarity

The four-step sequence (re-derive with idempotency checks → ground in PRD/Expert → triage → act per bucket → exit) is clear with real checkpoints (two idempotency checks, the never-silence/skip rules, one-pass exit), matching 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. Score 5 is withheld because a Clear fix has no explicit post-fix verification before push — nothing says re-run './prds/<f>/run-prd-test.sh' after the change — a minor validation gap in a code-modifying workflow.

Progressive Disclosure

Textbook structure: the SKILL.md body keeps decision logic and rules inline, while the two external files exist in the bundle, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled with their purpose ('The taxonomy, boundary heuristics, and examples live in references/triage.md — read it'; gh-mechanics.md holds 'the fiddly gh / GraphQL / REST commands... kept out of the skill's narrative'). Both referenced files were verified present and hold exactly the promised content.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete, comprehensive actions in third person: 'Triages each reviewer finding into Clear / Ambiguous / Complex / Out-of-PRD-Scope', 'fixes the cause and pushes (diff-only) for Clear, posts one in-thread reply for the rest', 'Skips findings it already handled'. Every capability of the skill is explicitly named with no vague filler — this matches the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' and exceeds the score-4 example, which would leave gaps in coverage.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is concrete (triage into four named buckets, fix-and-push for Clear, in-thread reply for the rest, skip handled findings) and the 'when' is explicit trigger guidance ('Triggers - ...'), the equivalent of a 'Use when...' clause, so the completeness cap of 3 for missing triggers does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger list 'address-feedback, address review comments, respond to PR review, handle reviewer findings, PR feedback loop' covers the natural synonyms a user would actually say for this task. This matches the comprehensive-with-synonyms anchor; score 4 would require natural terms to be visibly missing, and none are.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers: 'an automated reviewer's findings on the current feature PR — a narrow, headless responder', bounded further by 'Invoked headless by the dispatcher's feedback gate'. It is explicitly scoped to bot-reviewer findings (not human comments, not general code review), giving minimal overlap risk with related review skills.