Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious guidance, but includes unnecessary material: two long Scrum Guide blockquotes in the Overview (with the org-standards quote repeated verbatim in 'Per-organization vs per-team') explaining a concept Claude already knows, plus 'Limitations' and 'Audit limitations' sections that overlap. Not 4 because the duplication and concept re-explanation go beyond minor trimmable instances; not 2 because most sections (evidence mapping, verdict rules, templates) earn their tokens.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: specific commands ('gh pr view --json reviews,reviewDecision', '--json statusCheckRollup'), a precise LCOV reading method ('Per-file rate is LH / LF, computed only over files present in the diff'), and copy-paste-ready starter DoD, PR template, and audit report blocks covering the common cases. Not 4 because there are no gaps in concrete guidance.

Workflow Clarity

The audit workflow is clearly sequenced (setup: pin revision and evidence window, split atomic lines, handle conditionals, scope → evidence mapping → three-state assignment → verdict rules → report shape) with explicit validation standards ('self-attestation is not evidence', 'unverifiable never auto-passes') and feedback loops (unverifiable clears only via a named person; unenforceable lines are handed back to authoring). Not 4 because checkpoints are explicit rather than minor-gapped.

Progressive Disclosure

The one bundle reference (references/adherence-worked-example.md) is well-signaled, one level deep, and holds exactly the right content (a full end-to-end worked example), verified to exist. Not 5 because the spine itself runs ~300 lines with sections (e.g., the 10-row anti-patterns table, the evidence-mapping table) that could partly live in references, leaving the body long for an overview; not 3 because what is inline is well-sectioned and the reference is clearly signaled.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Drafts a starter DoD and a per-PR checklist', 'audits work line by line against an existing DoD with repository evidence, never on self-attestation', 'checking a PR or story against it' — in third person, comprehensively covering the skill's authoring and auditing halves. Not 4 because coverage of capabilities is complete rather than having minor gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('Drafts a starter DoD and a per-PR checklist, and audits work line by line... with repository evidence') and when ('Use for any question or task about a Definition of Done, including what one should include, checking a PR or story against it, and stories marked done that bounce back from QA'). Concrete trigger phrases are present, matching the 5 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: 'Definition of Done', 'DoD', 'PR', 'story', and the very natural scenario 'stories marked done that bounce back from QA'. Not 5 because common variations users might say — 'quality gate', 'acceptance criteria', 'is this story done' — are absent; not 3 because the key term, its abbreviation, and the related artifacts are all present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (DoD authoring and adherence auditing) with distinct triggers ('Definition of Done', 'bounce back from QA'); the mention of PR checking is framed as DoD auditing, so overlap with generic code-review skills is minimal.