Conciseness

The body is dense, skill-specific doctrine with no padding of concepts Claude already knows (no explanation of issue trackers or planning basics), matching score 4; it stops short of score 5 because some metaphor-heavy prose ("fog of war", "chart the way") could be tightened, and is above score 3 because almost every section earns its place with non-obvious wayfinder-specific rules.

Actionability

Provides concrete numbered steps, named skills to invoke (/grilling, /domain-modeling, /research), and specific labels (wayfinder:map, wayfinder:<type>), matching score 4; it does not reach score 5 because tracker-specific operations are deferred to an external tracker doc rather than given as executable commands, and it is above score 3 because the guidance is largely directly executable rather than pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Both invocation modes have clear numbered sequences with checkpoints (claim-before-work, the no-fog stop condition, the rule-out-of-scope recovery loop), matching score 4; it does not reach score 5 because some validation for the concurrency/issue-mutation operations is implicit rather than an explicit validate-fix-retry loop, and it is above score 3 because explicit checkpoints and recovery steps are present.

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained file with well-organized section headers and clear internal navigation, no bundle files needed, matching score 4; it does not reach score 5 because there are no one-level-deep references to split out (the anchor rewards a clear overview pointing to detail files), and it is above score 3 because structure is clean and content is appropriately placed rather than inlined where it does not belong.

Specificity

Names the domain and the core mechanism ("Plan work too large for one agent session as decision tickets resolved one at a time") but lists only 1-2 concrete actions and is not comprehensive, matching the score-3 anchor; it does not reach score 4 because multiple distinct concrete actions are not enumerated, and it is above score 2 because the action is specific rather than generic.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Plan work too large for one agent session as decision tickets resolved one at a time") and when ("Use when the user asks for a multi-session roadmap or long-running plan") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the score-5 anchor; it is below no neighboring anchor since both halves are explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user would say ("multi-session roadmap", "long-running plan") with good coverage, fitting the score-4 anchor; it stops short of score 5 because synonyms and varied phrasings are limited, and is above score 3 because the terms are natural rather than jargon-only.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-session decision-ticket framing is a clear, distinct niche with minor overlap risk against general planning skills, matching score 4; it does not reach score 5 because "plan" and "roadmap" are broad enough to overlap with adjacent planning skills, and is above score 3 because the decision-ticket mechanic narrows it notably.