Conciseness

The body is densely procedural and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it is noticeably padded by repetition: the two-tier preference lookup chain is duplicated verbatim in Step 2b and Step 5b, the "remember this?" follow-up pattern appears twice in full, and the self-heal test-retry rule is stated three times. This is more than the "minor instances that could be trimmed" of the level-4 anchor, but not the pervasive padding of level 2.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready: exact AskUserQuestion texts with option lists, exact artifact paths ("<plans-dir>/STANDARD_<name>/STANDARD_REPORT.json"), enumerated JSON report/change-record fields, structured agent prompt blocks, a concrete mkdir command, and a worked example table for the Sketch Source column. The common cases are covered; the only soft spot (undefined "key terms" in the manifest fuzzy-match) is acceptable flexibility.

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step sequence has explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops (run targeted tests per task, self-heal up to 3 attempts with escalation, "Only proceed to the next step when ALL tests pass", review verdict loop through NEEDS FIXES). It falls short of level 5 because step identifiers collide: "2b" and "2c" name both Step 2's sub-steps (Parallel agent dispatch / False-negative follow-up) and the top-level "Step 2b: Arness-Sketch Offer" / "Step 2c: Load Sketch Manifest" sections, so a transition like "continue to Step 2b" is ambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

The plan template is correctly split into the real, well-signaled references/standard-plan-template.md (referenced exactly where needed in Step 3), and external procedures are pointed to via clear one-level-deep references. It misses level 5 because substantial detail that belongs in reference files is inlined (the exhaustive UI/security term lists, the full report and change-record field specifications, and the preference-lookup logic duplicated instead of delegated to the referenced preferences-schema.md), and several referenced files live outside this skill's bundle.

Specificity

The description lists five concrete pipeline capabilities — "spec-lite generation, structured plan, in-session execution, review-lite, and a unified change record" — comprehensively covering what the skill does. It matches the comprehensive-coverage anchor rather than the level-4 anchor, which allows minor gaps in coverage; no pipeline stage is missing.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what it does ("Includes spec-lite generation, structured plan, in-session execution, review-lite, and a unified change record") and when to use it ("This skill should be used when the user says ... or wants a mid-ceremony implementation for a change that needs lightweight architectural context (spec-lite) and task-tracked execution but not the full feature-spec/plan pipeline") with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the level-5 anchor exactly; the missing-'Use when' cap does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Provides five natural trigger phrases ("arn-code-standard", "standard change", "medium change", "standard feature", "standard fix") giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of the level-5 comprehensive-coverage anchor because common variations users might say, such as "medium feature", "standard implementation", or "mid-sized change", are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche ("Bridges the gap between arn-code-swift and the full thorough pipeline") with tier-specific trigger phrases, but the tiered vocabulary ("standard"/"medium" change) intentionally overlaps sibling tier skills routed by the same scope router, so minor overlap risk with closely related skills remains — the level-4 anchor, not the minimal-conflict level-5 anchor.