This is an excellent skill description that clearly communicates what the skill does (creates structured implementation plans with atomic tasks, acceptance criteria, and verification steps), where outputs go (specific file path), and when to use it (comprehensive 'Use when' clause with multiple natural trigger scenarios). It is specific, well-scoped, and distinctive enough to avoid conflicts with other skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: creates/updates structured plans, breaks change requests into scoped atomic tasks, specifies clear goals, boundaries, acceptance criteria, and verification steps. Also specifies the output path format `context/plans/{plan_name}.md`.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (creates/updates SCE implementation plans with atomic tasks, goals, boundaries, acceptance criteria, verification steps) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause covering feature planning, refactoring, integration, task breakdowns, roadmaps, and change requests requiring structured planning).	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes a strong set of natural trigger terms users would say: 'plan a new feature', 'refactor', 'integration', 'project plan', 'task breakdown', 'implementation roadmap', 'work plan', 'success criteria', 'structured planning'. These cover many natural variations of how users would request planning help.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Highly distinctive with the specific SCE plan format, output path convention, and focus on structured implementation planning with atomic tasks. The combination of the specific artifact type (SCE plans in `context/plans/`) and the planning-before-execution focus creates a clear niche unlikely to conflict with general coding or documentation skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Implementation

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-structured planning skill with strong actionability and clear workflow sequencing. The clarification gate as a blocking checkpoint is a notable strength, and the concrete examples (filled-in task, clarification questions, output contract) make the skill highly executable. Minor weaknesses include some verbosity in the clarification gate and atomic slicing sections, and an unverifiable external reference to PLAN_EXAMPLE.md.

Suggestions

Tighten the 'Atomic task slicing contract' section by removing restated ideas—the concept of 'one atomic commit' is explained three slightly different ways.

Include the PLAN_EXAMPLE.md file in the bundle or inline a minimal version so the reference is verifiable and the skill is self-contained.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but some sections are slightly verbose—e.g., the clarification gate's bullet list of critical details could be tightened, and the example clarification questions, while useful, add length. The atomic task slicing contract section repeats ideas (e.g., 'one atomic commit unit' restated multiple ways).	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides concrete, specific guidance throughout: exact plan format, required task fields, a filled-in example task entry with real commands (`pnpm test`, `curl`), checkbox syntax for progress tracking, and a specific output contract with a canonical next command. The example clarification questions are also concrete and domain-specific.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The workflow is clearly sequenced: intake trigger → clarification gate (blocking) → plan writing → output contract. The clarification gate is an explicit validation checkpoint that blocks progress until ambiguity is resolved. The final task requires validation and cleanup. The feedback loop (ask questions → wait → incorporate answers → proceed) is well-defined.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references `context/plans/PLAN_EXAMPLE.md` for a full annotated reference plan, which is good progressive disclosure. However, no bundle files are provided, so this reference is unverifiable. The inline content is reasonably well-structured with clear sections, but the example task entries and the skeleton could potentially be moved to a reference file to keep the main skill leaner.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation