Conciseness

The body is mostly dense, project-specific instruction, but it carries trimmable meta-commentary: the N=0 guard block includes design-history prose ("Note the shape, because this skill already had the harder half of the rule... The same shape appears in /story-readiness...") and Phase 2 explains why full reads are costly — rationale Claude does not need to execute the skill. This matches the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor; it is not 2 because the padding is localized, not pervasive, and not 4 because the meta-commentary blocks are genuinely removable.

Actionability

The guidance is fully executable: exact Grep invocations with patterns, globs, and flags; exact output and evidence file paths; a complete copy-paste plan template ( fenced as a full markdown document ); verbatim AskUserQuestion text and options; the exact silent-append comment for session-state. Placeholders in the template are by-design and explicitly labeled, matching the top anchor.

Workflow Clarity

Five phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery paths: the mandatory N=0 guard ("If the resolved scope contains ZERO stories, stop"), MISSING-and-continue for individual missing files, the "Never treat an absent section as an absent story" fallback with a full-read, per-level config resolution, and terminal verdicts (COMPLETE vs NOT ASSESSED). This matches the anchor requiring explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files, so the skill is a single ~358-line document; the ~115-line plan template and the Collaborative Protocol are inlined where a split into reference files would serve progressive disclosure. Section headers and the clearly-signaled .claude/docs/ pointers give it real structure, so it sits at the 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' anchor rather than 2, but it cannot reach 4 without any bundle-level split.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "classifies stories by Logic/Integration/Visual/UI", "covers automated tests, manual cases, smoke scope" — matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It is not 5 because coverage is incomplete (playtest requirements, the Definition-of-Done checklist, and the output artifact are all unmentioned), and not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

It clearly answers "what" (classifies stories by test type, covers automated/manual/smoke scope) but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which the judging guidelines cap at 3. The "when" is entirely absent rather than merely weakly implied, so 4 does not fit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural keywords users would say are present — "QA test plan", "sprint", "automated tests", "manual cases", "smoke scope" — giving good keyword coverage. A few natural terms are missing ("test plan", "test cases", "playtest", "quality assurance", "testing"), so it falls short of the comprehensive-synonyms anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"QA test plan for a sprint" carves a clear niche in a game-dev QA workflow, and the type taxonomy makes it largely distinct. Minor overlap risk remains with closely related sibling skills (/smoke-check, /story-readiness, /story-done) that share the smoke-scope and QA-gating vocabulary, so it is mostly distinct rather than a clear 5.