Conciseness

Mostly lean, load-bearing instruction with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — the enumerated suppression directives ("eslint-disable*, @ts-ignore / @ts-expect-error, # type: ignore ... # noqa") and skip markers are pure project-specific rules, not padding. It stops short of the 5 anchor because the 'Hard nevers' section restates ~90% of rules already given in the one-way model, skip-rule, and idempotency sections, and the 'Contract with the dispatcher' section re-covers idempotency — trimmable redundancy rather than the 'every token earns its place' ideal.

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully actionable: exact paths ("prds/<f>/run-prd-test.sh", ".harness/feedback-rounds-<f>", ".claude/skills/expert/references/*.md"), the four-bucket decision table with an exact action per bucket, and the copy-paste-ready gh/git/GraphQL commands in references/gh-mechanics.md, which the body points to by exact path. Per the code_vs_instruction note, absence of inline code is not penalized when guidance is this concrete; the common cases (fix-and-push, reply-in-thread) each have specific executable steps.

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence (re-derive state → triage → act per bucket → exit) with genuine checkpoints: idempotency re-derivation from ground truth before acting, PRD/Expert grounding before classifying, and the scope-tight/never-silence constraints on every Clear fix. It misses the 5 anchor because there is no explicit verify-the-fix checkpoint before push (e.g., re-run local checks or the PRD test) — the only verification is the stated precondition that the feature already worked. Not capped at 3: this is not a destructive operation and state validation (both idempotency checks) is present and explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview and the split is deliberate and clean: the fiddly plumbing commands live in references/gh-mechanics.md and the classification taxonomy with worked examples in references/triage.md — both real files (verified), one level deep, each signaled by exact path at its point of use ("see references/gh-mechanics.md for the exact commands", "The taxonomy, boundary heuristics, and examples live in references/triage.md — read it"). No detail that belongs in a reference is inlined; navigation is trivial. Matches the 5 anchor.

Specificity

The description 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". The full behavior space (all four buckets and their two action modes) is covered with no vague filler. Anti-drift check: score 4 requires 'minor gaps in coverage', but every triage bucket and its action is enumerated, so the 5 anchor fits best.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' is the triage-then-act pipeline described concretely, and the 'when' appears twice — "Invoked headless by the dispatcher's feedback gate" and the explicit "Triggers - ..." clause. This matches the 5 anchor ('clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'); the explicit trigger guidance also lifts it past the 4 anchor's 'when could be more explicit'.

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger list — "address-feedback, address review comments, respond to PR review, handle reviewer findings, PR feedback loop" — contains several natural phrases a user would actually say. It falls short of the 5 anchor because common synonyms like 'review comments', 'PR feedback', 'respond to reviewer comments', or 'review reply' are missing; it is clearly above the 3 anchor ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations') since four-plus natural phrasings are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — "Respond to an automated reviewer's findings on the current feature PR — a narrow, headless responder" acting on a bot reviewer's findings only, with explicit scope carve-outs (dispatcher owns round counter, human comments off-limits). The triggers ('respond to PR review', 'handle reviewer findings') are distinct and would not plausibly fire a general code-review or document skill, matching the 5 anchor ('clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk').