Conciseness

The body is dense with directives and never re-teaches concepts Claude already knows; every line carries guidance (e.g., 'An existing file does not prove that a stage is complete'). A few abstract phrases such as 'use research, PRD, and technical design skills selectively' could be tightened, matching 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' — not 5 due to those minor trims, not 3 because there are no full unnecessary explanations.

Actionability

The four scenario branches each carry concrete directives, but 'The five stages are a useful route' references stages that are never enumerated anywhere in the skill, and 'selectively' leaves which-skill choices unresolved — missing key details. This matches 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details'; not 4 because the undefined stage list is a substantive gap, not a minor one.

Workflow Clarity

The routing decision is clearly structured (new product / existing product / broken behavior / instructions-only) with verification guidance ('use an available verification skill for a relevant user journey', 'distinguish actual results from unperformed checks') and closing/reporting steps. This matches 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' — not 5 because checkpoints are stated as principles rather than explicit validate-fix-retry loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references (none exist in the bundle), and is well organized via an intro, a four-item scenario bullet list, and grouped delegation/reporting guidance. Per the rubric's simple-skill exception, this earns the top anchor: clear, navigable, appropriately self-contained.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("app project") and one concrete action ("Select the appropriate planning, implementation, or debugging workflow"), but offers only a single action verb across three categories rather than several distinct capabilities. It matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — not 4 because coverage is thin, not 2 because the domain and action are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (select the appropriate workflow for an app project), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

"planning", "implementation", "debugging", "workflow", and "app project" are terms users would plausibly say, but there are no synonyms or common variations (e.g., 'build', 'ship', 'fix a bug', 'PRD'). This matches 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

As a router for planning, implementation, and debugging, it directly overlaps with the very skills it routes to — a user asking to plan or debug could trigger this instead of the specific skill. 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' fits best; not 4 because the overlap is structural, not minor.