Conciseness

Lean and token-efficient: every numbered line is an actionable rule with no padding or re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and the closing line adds a tight feedback-loop note.

Actionability

Names exact MCP tools and their required arguments (e.g. 'check_plan with the intent, files, language, framework, dependencies, and planned approach') plus concrete decision rules, but lacks a worked example showing an actual invocation and its result.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered preflight -> check_plan -> scan_diff -> finalize_change sequence with explicit gates ('Treat banned findings as blockers', 'Change the code before finishing') and a fix-and-rerun feedback loop for hooks/CI findings.

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained file under 50 lines with no external references needed; the numbered list and orienting intro are well-organized, satisfying the simple-skill exception.

Specificity

Names concrete actions ('generating, editing, or reviewing' code) and three explicit practice-check checkpoints ('before planning, after edits, and before final handoff'), but does not enumerate what the checking produces or which practice categories are covered.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'when' ('Use when generating, editing, or reviewing ... code') and 'what' ('company-specific practices are checked before planning, after edits, and before final handoff') with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage across five named languages plus 'company-specific practices', but misses common synonyms (e.g. 'coding standards', 'linting') and file extensions users might say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to five specific languages and a company-practice MCP niche, giving mostly distinct triggers, with minor overlap risk against general code-review or linting skills.