Conciseness

Every sentence is a directive with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the body is ~35 lines of dense, purposeful instruction matching the "lean and efficient; every token earns its place" anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, executable directives throughout: specific edge-case categories ("absent or empty values, boundary values, inverted conditions"), a tracing procedure ("trace a record from input to persistence and check the state left by an interrupted run"), a concrete file-reading step (the AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md chain), and a structured reporting spec. Absence of code is not penalized for an instruction-only skill, but no worked example of an actual finding is given, leaving the minor gap that characterizes a 4.

Workflow Clarity

This is a single-purpose skill under 50 lines, and the Scope → Method → Threshold → Reporting flow is clear and well-organized, so the simple-skill exception applies. The Threshold section acts as an explicit decision checkpoint ("Do not report guards for states the types or the callers already rule out"), and the skill is analysis-only, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external bundle references (none exist and none are needed), and it is organized into clean labeled sections (Scope, Method, Threshold, Reporting), which per the rubric guidance earns a 5. The AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md mention is operational reading material, not a bundle-reference problem.

Specificity

"Review a code change for realistic functional defects, data loss, duplicate writes, ordering mistakes, and broken integration contracts" enumerates five concrete defect classes, matching the anchor-5 pattern of multiple specific, comprehensive items rather than the minor-gaps coverage of a 4.

Completeness

It clearly answers both what (first sentence) and when ("Use as one lens in a code review run when correctness or data integrity may be affected"), so the missing-trigger cap does not apply. However, the 'when' clause is a conditional abstraction rather than concrete user trigger phrases, matching the anchor-4 case where 'when' could be more explicit or specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ("code review", "correctness", "data integrity", "data loss", "functional defects", "duplicate writes"), but common synonyms users would naturally say such as "bugs", "errors", or "data corruption" are missing, so it falls short of the comprehensive-synonyms anchor for 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"One lens in a code review run" carves a clear correctness/data-integrity niche with distinct trigger terms, but the broad "code review" framing creates minor overlap risk with sibling review-lens skills, matching "mostly distinct; minor overlap risk" rather than the minimal-conflict anchor for 5.