Conciseness

The body is lean and efficient: six numbered instructions and two stop conditions, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. Every line adds project-specific constraint ('Match existing Go package boundaries... Makefile validation flow', 'Leave changes in the working tree; CI handles commit, push, and PR creation'), matching the anchor-5 example of 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Guidance is partially concrete — 'Run targeted tests first, then `make verify` when feasible' names a real command, and 'Leave changes in the working tree' is executable — but 'Run targeted tests' is unspecified (no example command like `go test ./pkg/...`), and 'when feasible' is a hedge that leaves the executor guessing. This lands at anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details') rather than 4, which requires mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step sequence is clear and ordered (read context → identify change → match patterns → add tests → run tests then `make verify` → leave in working tree), with validation embedded in step 5 and explicit stop conditions as guardrails. It is not 5 because there is no feedback loop for what to do when tests or `make verify` fail, and 'when feasible' weakens the validation checkpoint — anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps').

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) and no need for external references. Per the simple-skills scoring note, it qualifies for 5 with just well-organized sections — which it has ('Instructions' and 'Stop Conditions' are clearly separated and easy to navigate).

Specificity

The description names a concrete domain ("Cerebro issues or PR follow-ups from Droid Create workflows") and one concrete action ("Implement focused... issues"), but stops there — anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') fits. It does not reach anchor 4 because it lists no secondary actions (e.g., reading reviews, adding tests, running validation), and it is above anchor 2 because the domain and primary action are explicitly stated rather than generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear — implement focused issues/PR follow-ups — but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 3. It fits anchor 3 ('has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'); the implicit 'when' (when a Cerebro issue or Droid Create PR follow-up arrives) is not stated.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some relevant keywords a user might echo ("issues", "PR follow-ups", "Cerebro", "Droid Create"), but misses common variations and synonyms (e.g., 'implement an issue', 'address PR feedback', 'fix a failing check'). This matches anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') — not 4, since natural phrasing coverage is thin, and not 2, since the terms present are domain-relevant rather than purely generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is mostly distinct — 'Cerebro' and 'Droid Create' are project-specific nouns that few other skills would claim, and 'issues/PR follow-ups' scopes it narrowly. It is not 5 because 'Implement... issues' could still overlap with general issue-implementation or code-review skills in the same repo; it is above 3 because the internal tool names provide a strong distinguishing signal.