Conciseness

The body is dense and table-driven ('File Purposes', 'Read vs Write Decision Matrix', 'Anti-Patterns') with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, though 'The Core Pattern' RAM/disk metaphor and the '5-Question Reboot Test' overlap enough with the File Purposes table that they could be trimmed. This sits at 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation', not 5, because a few sections restate the same persistence philosophy three ways.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: copy-paste-ready invocations are given for `session-catchup.py --metadata` (bash and PowerShell), `init-session.sh`, `check-complete.sh --validate`, and `set-active-plan.sh --list`, plus exact format rules ('Keep each phase as `### Phase N: Name` with exactly one `**Status:**` line'). It falls short of 5 because the very first instructed action — 'Use the installed `scripts/resolve-plan-dir.sh` (or `.ps1`) with the host's `PLAN_ID` and `PWF_PLAN_ROOT`' — never shows a concrete example command, leaving the entry-point step as high-level direction.

Workflow Clarity

The Quick Start sequence (restore before create, preserve markers, re-read before decisions, one plan owner), the creation contract with 'Validation must succeed before substantive work and after changing phase structure', the 3-Strike escalation protocol, and error-logging rules give a clear sequence with most checkpoints present. Not 5 because the FIRST section — the actual entry point — packs plan resolution, catchup, parallel-host pinning, and orchestrator/worker roles into one paragraph with implicit checkpoints, and the destructive archive operation's guard ('Never archive on age or completion alone') relies on prose rather than an explicit validate step.

Progressive Disclosure

The section structure is good and references are one level deep and clearly signaled ('Manus Principles: See references/reference.md', 'Real Examples: See references/examples.md', plan-inventory.md), and all three referenced `references/` files exist in the bundle. But scored against the actual bundle, the Templates section's links to `templates/task_plan.md`, `templates/findings.md`, and `templates/progress.md` are dead — no `templates/` directory ships in the bundle — so half of the body's file references point at nonexistent paths while the text says 'Copy these templates to start'. That is more than the 'minor organization gaps' of anchor 4; not 2 because the in-body content is well placed and the existing references are properly signaled.

Specificity

It lists several specific concrete actions with named artifacts: 'Keeps task_plan.md, findings.md, and progress.md on disk', 'lifecycle hooks inject selected project planning context', 'session-catchup.py --metadata reads same-project local agent session records and emits aggregate counts only'. Not 5 because a large share of the description is spent on scope/security caveats ('no network upload path', 'never runs commands declared in Markdown') rather than capabilities, leaving coverage of what the skill actually does for the user less comprehensive than the anchor-5 examples.

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: the 'what' is concrete ('Persistent file-based planning for multi-step AI-agent work. Keeps task_plan.md, findings.md, and progress.md on disk; lifecycle hooks inject...') and the 'when' is an explicit clause ('Use for research or work needing 5+ tool calls.'). It is not 5 because the when-clause is thin — only two triggers, one of them an internal metric users would not naturally phrase — whereas anchor 5 demands concrete trigger phrases like 'when the user mentions PDFs, forms, or document extraction'.

Trigger Term Quality

Some relevant natural keywords are present — 'planning', 'multi-step', 'research', 'work needing 5+ tool calls' — but common variations a user would actually say are missing: 'task tracking', 'todo', 'project', 'stay organized', 'resume', 'session'. '5+ tool calls' and 'nonce-framed excerpts' are agent/implementation jargon rather than user-spoken trigger phrases. This matches 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms', and falls well short of anchor 4's good natural-term coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named file trio (task_plan.md, findings.md, progress.md), the hook-injection mechanism, and session-catchup.py give it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk against unrelated skills. Not 5 because 'planning' and 'research' are broad triggers that overlap with general task-organization and project-planning skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than a fully unambiguous niche.