Conciseness

Most sections are lean, but the ~25-line Example transcript largely restates the 'How to Request' placeholders as a roleplay, and the 'If reviewer wrong' bullets duplicate step 3's 'Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)'. Mostly efficient with some unnecessary content matches anchor 3; not 4 because the example is a whole padded section rather than a minor instance.

Actionability

Concrete commands ('git rev-parse HEAD~1', 'git rev-parse HEAD'), a named subagent type, enumerated placeholders, and explicit triage rules make the guidance mostly executable. Not 5 because step 2 directs the reader to fill a template at 'code-reviewer.md' that does not exist in the skill bundle, so the dispatch step cannot be executed as written.

Workflow Clarity

The three-step sequence (get SHAs → dispatch reviewer → act on feedback) is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints ('Fix Critical issues immediately', 'Fix Important issues before proceeding') and an error-recovery path (push back with technical reasoning). Not 5 because BASE_SHA selection is left loose ('HEAD~1 or origin/main') and the dispatch step depends on the missing template file.

Progressive Disclosure

The single file is well-sectioned, but it points twice to a template file ('fill template at code-reviewer.md', 'See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md') that is absent from the bundle — a dangling reference for what is essentially the skill's core payload. Some structure with a problematic reference matches anchor 3; not 4 because the one external dependency it declares is unusable.

Specificity

No concrete action is ever named — the description never mentions code review, dispatching a reviewer, or reviewing diffs; the only action-ish phrase is the generic 'verify work meets requirements'. This sits between anchor 1 (entirely vague) and anchor 3 (1-2 concrete actions), matching anchor 2's minimal/generic action coverage.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and well-structured ('Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging'), and a 'what' is present ('verify work meets requirements'), but that 'what' states only a purpose, not the actual action (dispatching a code-review subagent). Matches anchor 4's pattern of both present with one under-specified; not 3 because the 'when' clause is strong rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like 'completing tasks', 'implementing major features', 'before merging', and 'verify work' are relevant workflow triggers, but the natural terms users would actually say — 'code review', 'review my code', 'PR review', 'feedback' — are all missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Completing tasks' is fully generic and would overlap with virtually any workflow skill (testing, commit messages, plan execution, verification); only 'before merging' narrows the scope slightly. High overlap risk matches anchor 2; not 3 because the trigger set as a whole is dominated by the generic opening condition.