The body is instruction-dense with executable commands and no concept-explanation padding (it never explains what a PR or commit is), so most tokens earn their place; borderline toward 2 given the length and a consolidated References section that re-lists inline links, but it stays lean for the complexity covered.

Numerous copy-paste-ready commands ("$AUTOREVIEW" --mode branch --base origin/main, gh pr view --json baseRefName --jq .baseRefName, --reviewers codex,claude --model ...) make the guidance fully executable; matches score-3, not 2 which would use pseudocode or omit key details.

The 7-step Core Workflow is explicitly sequenced with validation ("Verify each finding against the code and reject weak findings explicitly") and a feedback loop ("Rerun focused tests plus autoreview when fixes change code") ending in a terminal checkpoint ("Stop after the helper exits 0..."); matches score-3, not 2 which lacks checkpoints.

Detail is pushed to four clearly signaled one-level-deep references each with a description (troubleshooting.md, scope.md, engine-details.md, upstream.md) plus a consolidated References section, matching the score-3 anchor; note that the referenced files were not present in this review bundle to verify, but the written structure is exemplary.

"choose the target, validate findings, rerun focused tests, and repeat until clean" plus the target list "local changes, pull requests, branch diffs, or commits" enumerates multiple concrete actions, matching the score-3 anchor; not a 2 because it goes beyond naming a domain to listing specific operations.

Both the "what" (run the helper as a structured closeout with named actions) and the "when" ("Use when explicitly asked for autoreview...") are explicit, with an added negative boundary; this is the score-3 anchor, not a 2 where "when" is only implied.

"Use when explicitly asked for autoreview, Codex/Claude review, or a tool-backed final review" covers the natural terms a user would say for this skill; not a 2 because the primary triggers ("autoreview", "Codex/Claude review") are present rather than only generic jargon.

A clear niche (second-model closeout) plus "Do not use for builder verification or an independent multi-agent ship decision" makes it unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill; matches score-3, not 2 which still risks overlap.