Conciseness

The body is efficient with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section drives action. Not a 5: the dialogue-style Example walkthrough and the long "Reality" cells in the Common Rationalizations table (e.g. "You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window...") carry padding that could be tightened without losing guidance.

Actionability

Copy-paste ready commands ("BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)", "HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)"), a concrete dispatch instruction pointing to the real template at references/code-reviewer.md with all four placeholders defined, and a worked example with actual SHA values. Not a 4: no gaps remain — the common case is fully executable end to end.

Workflow Clarity

A clear three-step sequence (get SHAs → dispatch reviewer → act on feedback) with an explicit severity-triage checkpoint ("Fix Critical issues immediately", "Fix Important issues before proceeding") and an error-recovery loop ("Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)", "Show code/tests that prove it works"). Not a 4: validation checkpoints and feedback loops are explicit, and this review skill is not a destructive/batch operation so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-sectioned ~90-line overview that keeps the 181-line bulk prompt template in references/code-reviewer.md, a real file referenced one level deep and clearly signaled both in the dispatch step and at the end. Not a 4: content is appropriately split and navigation is easy; the only nit is the duplicate link to the same reference, which does not impair navigation.

Specificity

"Dispatch a code-reviewer subagent with precisely scoped context (git SHAs, task description, requirements) to review a diff and return Critical, Important, and Minor findings" lists multiple concrete actions with a complete output taxonomy. Not a 4: coverage is comprehensive for this workflow's scope with no minor gaps in what the skill does.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Dispatch a code-reviewer subagent... to review a diff and return Critical, Important, and Minor findings") and when ("Use after delivery-flow finishes implementing and verifying a task, before merging to main") with concrete timing. Not a 4: the when-clause is fully explicit, not vague or merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "code review", "review a diff", "merging to main", "delivery-flow" — including synonyms. Not a 5: the most natural user-entry phrases ("review this PR", "review my code") appear only as explicit exclusions, so a couple of natural trigger terms are effectively routed away from this skill.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche ("internal code-review stage of the delivery-flow workflow") and actively steers conflicting triggers away ("do not activate it directly for a one-off 'review this PR'... use delivery-flow instead"). Not a 4: it does more than avoid overlap — it explicitly resolves the conflict with standalone review skills.