Conciseness

The body is dense and earns most of its tokens: tables (檔案用途, 讀取 vs 寫入決策矩陣, 反模式), the two-step rule, and the three-failure protocol are all guidance Claude would not produce on its own. Minor over-explanation remains: plan-directory selection and PLAN_ID pinning are restated across "第一步", "快速開始", and "新計畫的建立約定", and the 安全邊界 section repeats defensive statements already in the description — so it sits at 4, not the lean 5.

Actionability

Mostly executable: copy-paste-ready commands such as the session-catchup.py invocations with "$(command -v python3 || command -v python)", "sh \"$PWF_SKILL_DIR/scripts/check-complete.sh\" --validate path/to/task_plan.md", and the set-active-plan --list / --archive <id> / --restore <id> flag set. Minor gaps keep it from 5: the resolve-plan-dir.sh call is described in prose ("配合主機的 PLAN_ID 與 PWF_PLAN_ROOT") without an exact invocation, and how to "釘選" (pin) a PLAN_ID to a host is never shown as a command.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: plan resolution steps 1–3 in "第一步", the creation convention requiring the format check to pass "實作前及修改階段結構後" (before implementation and after structural changes), the 三次失敗協定 as an error-recovery loop ending in asking the user, the 五問重啟測試 checklist, and archive operations gated on user consent with a preview step.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and references are one level deep, but scored against the actual bundle, four of the five non-script references are broken: "[templates/task_plan.md](templates/task_plan.md)", "[templates/findings.md](templates/findings.md)", "[templates/progress.md](templates/progress.md)" and "[plan-inventory.md](plan-inventory.md)" point to files that are absent from the bundle (only SKILL.md and scripts/ ship). The script references (init-session.sh, check-complete.sh, session-catchup.py, resolve-plan-dir.sh, set-active-plan.sh) do resolve. Broken primary entry points push this to 3 rather than 4.

Specificity

Names the concrete artifacts and actions: "將 task_plan.md、findings.md 與 progress.md 保存在磁碟上", "生命週期鉤子會注入選定的專案規劃內容", and the specific session-catchup.py --metadata / --replay modes. Falls short of 5 because a sizable share of the text is defensive meta-commentary ("此技能沒有網路上傳路徑", "絕不執行 Markdown 中宣告的命令") that adds constraint statements rather than capability coverage, and core workflow actions are only implied.

Completeness

Clearly answers both questions: what — "持久化檔案規劃。將 task_plan.md、findings.md 與 progress.md 保存在磁碟上" with the hook-injection mechanism; when — "適用於研究或需要超過 5 次工具呼叫的工作" plus explicit concrete trigger phrases. Matches the anchor-5 pattern of 'capabilities + Use when + triggers' exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit trigger list "觸發詞：任務規劃、專案計畫、制定計畫、分解任務、多步驟規劃、進度追蹤、檔案規劃、幫我規劃、拆解專案" covers nine natural phrases a user would actually say, including synonyms and a casual register ("幫我規劃"), matching the comprehensive-synonyms anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The persistent-file-planning niche with named files (task_plan.md/findings.md/progress.md) and distinct trigger terms ("檔案規劃", "多步驟規劃") is mostly distinguishable from other skills. Minor overlap remains with generic planning or project-management skills triggered by broad phrases like "制定計畫" or "幫我規劃", keeping it below the clear-niche anchor.