This is a strong, well-crafted description that clearly communicates what the skill does (execute planned implementation tasks with guardrails) and when to use it (implementing tasks from project plans). It includes rich trigger terms, specific concrete actions, and distinctive elements like the approval gate and plan file tracking that differentiate it from generic coding or editing skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'coding a feature, applying a patch, making targeted file changes' along with specific mechanisms like 'approval gate, scope guardrails, evidence capture, pre-implementation confirmation prompt, test/lint verification, status tracking'.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (executes a planned implementation task with approval gate, scope guardrails, evidence capture) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause specifying trigger scenarios like implementing a task from a project plan, coding a feature, applying a patch, etc.).	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'implement', 'run', 'execute', 'task', 'project plan', 'coding a feature', 'applying a patch', 'file changes'. These cover common variations of how users would request task execution.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Highly distinctive due to the specific combination of plan-based task execution with mandatory approval gates, scope guardrails, and status tracking in a specific file path (context/plans/{plan_id}.md). This is unlikely to conflict with general coding or file editing skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Implementation

92%

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

This is a strong, well-crafted skill that clearly defines a gated implementation workflow with explicit approval checkpoints, scope boundaries, and evidence capture. The concrete examples for both the mandatory stop prompt and task status update are excellent and directly usable. Minor improvement could come from better signaling of how this skill relates to the broader planning system it references.

Suggestions

Add a brief reference or link to documentation about the `context/plans/` and `context/tmp/` directory structure so Claude understands the broader system this skill operates within.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Every section serves a clear purpose. No unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows. The examples are practical and earn their token cost by illustrating the exact format expected.	3 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides concrete, specific guidance: exact prompt format to show users, exact markdown format for status updates, clear rules for scope boundaries. The examples are copy-paste ready templates rather than abstract descriptions.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The required sequence is clearly numbered with 8 explicit steps. There's a mandatory approval gate (step 3) before any destructive action, validation via tests/lints (step 5), and scope expansion requires stopping for approval. The feedback loop for out-of-scope work is explicit.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-structured with clear sections and headers, but it references `context/plans/{plan_id}.md` and `context/tmp/` without linking to any documentation about the broader plan system or context directory structure. For a skill of this size, inline content is reasonable, but a brief reference to related skills or docs would improve navigation.	2 / 3
	Total	11 / 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

5 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation