Conciseness

The body is lean and purely operational: it never explains what code review is or how gh/git work, and every section (steps, prompt template, output format, posting commands) is directly load-bearing. The one explanatory paragraph ("Why a subagent") exists to enforce a behavioral constraint — running in a fresh context — rather than to teach, so every token earns its place per anchor 5. Not 4: there is no over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste executable throughout: concrete commands (`gh pr view <n>`, `git rev-parse <branch>`, `gh pr diff <N>`, `git diff main...<branch>`, `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/reviews`), a complete subagent prompt template, and an exact output format covering both the findings and no-findings cases. This matches anchor 5 ('fully executable; copy-paste ready; covers the common cases') better than 4, which anticipates gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The four steps are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: step 1 verifies the PR/branch exists (`gh pr view <n>` / `git rev-parse <branch>`) before delegating; step 2 includes a fallback when the purpose-built subagent type is unavailable; and the subagent template embeds self-validation ("is this definitely a real issue a senior engineer would flag? Discard if uncertain"). This matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery' — not 4, since no checkpoint is merely implicit. The skill is read-only (posting is a separate opt-in step), so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized single file (~90 lines) with clearly headed sections, and it externalizes depth exactly where it should: the full review policy lives in REVIEW.md and AGENTS.md files, referenced one level deep and clearly signaled ("the review policy lives in REVIEW.md", "read REVIEW.md first for the policy"). No bundle files exist to misplace, and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined — anchor 5. Not 4: navigation and placement have no gaps.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Code review the current PR (or branch diff against main)") and enumerates three concrete review actions ("for bugs, security, and AGENTS.md compliance"). It stops short of comprehensive coverage — test coverage assessment and comment posting (both in the body) go unmentioned — matching anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps') rather than 5.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit ("Code review the current PR (or branch diff against main) for bugs, security, and AGENTS.md compliance") and the 'when' is explicit ("MUST use when asked to review code"). The trigger clause is narrower than the skill's actual scope — users asking to "review this PR" or "review my changes" are not covered — so anchor 4 ('both present; when could be more explicit or specific') fits better than 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "code review", "PR", "branch diff against main", "bugs", and "security" are present and map to what a user would actually say. Common phrasings such as "review my changes", "review this diff", or "review the branch" are missing, which fits anchor 4 ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') better than 5's 'comprehensive coverage including synonyms'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The PR/branch-diff scope and AGENTS.md compliance focus carve out a clear niche that distinguishes it from generic code-review or security-audit skills. There is minor overlap risk with other review-oriented skills (e.g., a generic PR review skill), placing it at anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.