The body is ~280 lines with substantial persuasive rationale and lengthy inline source quotes (e.g. Meszaros/Fowler citations restated at length in rules and the anti-patterns table); while it does not explain basic concepts Claude already knows, it could be tightened toward the level-3 'every token earns its place' anchor by trimming rhetorical framing and consolidating repeated citations.

Concrete, executable guidance throughout — a per-class signal table, normalized signature definitions, an explicit four-condition gate, an executable TypeScript fold example, and a worked example with real rows — matching the level-3 'specific examples, copy-paste ready' anchor; it is not level 2 because guidance is complete rather than pseudocode or vague.

A clear five-step sequence (Classify → apply class test → delete gate → choose action → record) with the conjunctive gate as an explicit validation checkpoint over destructive/batch deletes and a missing-input-as-failure feedback rule, satisfying the level-3 anchor; it is not level 2 because checkpoints and error-recovery handling are explicit, not implicit.

Overview body points to two real, clearly-signaled one-level-deep references (references/applying-the-removal-classes.md and references/removal-ledger-and-report-format.md, both verified to exist) with detailed material split out appropriately, matching the level-3 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.

Names multiple concrete actions — 'five removal classes (duplicate, tautology, trivial, dead-signal, orphan)', 'a four-condition delete gate', 'a written reason, redundant-coverage evidence from a per-test source map, and a named reviewer' — matching the level-3 anchor of several specific concrete actions rather than a single domain/action at level 2.

Explicitly answers both what ('Decides which existing tests should stop existing...') and when via an explicit 'Use when a suite has outgrown its signal value and someone is opening a pruning change set that deletes test files' clause, satisfying the level-3 anchor; it is not level 2 because the when-trigger is stated, not merely implied.

Natural trigger phrasing a user would say appears directly — 'opening a pruning change set that deletes test files' and 'which tests to RUN per change' — giving good coverage of how the need actually surfaces, not just technical jargon; it is not level 2 because common variations (delete/remove tests, prune a suite) are well represented.

Carves a clear niche — 'owns the second question only' of removal vs selection — and explicitly routes adjacent needs elsewhere ('for choosing which tests to RUN per change use regression-suite-selector, and to track accumulating low-value coverage use coverage-debt-tracker'), making misfires unlikely; it is not level 2 because the boundary against sibling skills is drawn explicitly.