Conciseness

No filler or explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the when-to-use guidance is stated three times — 'Activation Contract' (use-first/do-not-use/checklist), 'When to use this skill', and 'Decision rule' (use-full/skip-full) — and the 'Minimal checklist' restates it a fourth time. Mostly efficient with a genuine tightening opportunity, hence 3 rather than 4; not 2 because every section is directive and none is padded prose.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact file paths ('specs/<spec_name>/requirements.md'), a copy-paste EARS template with a worked example, and a ready-to-use task-format block. Not 5 because Phase 1's user stories and Phase 2's design content get no template or example; not 3 because the guidance is directly usable, not high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

Four phases are explicitly sequenced with confirmation gates ('Only start implementation after the user confirms the task plan', 'Require confirmation between requirements, design, and task breakdown') plus a minimal checklist. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do when the user rejects the requirements — revise and re-confirm is only implicit); not 3 because checkpoints are explicit, not missing.

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned file with no nested references; sibling references ('../ui-design/SKILL.md', '../data-model-creation/SKILL.md') are one level deep, clearly signaled, and carry an explicit fallback when missing (they do not resolve in this environment, though the skill anticipates that). Nothing at this size clearly belongs in a separate file. Not 5 because the skill ships no bundle structure of its own and its cross-references cannot be verified to exist here; not 3 because organization and signaling are solid.

Specificity

Names several concrete capability areas — 'explicit requirements, technical design, and task planning' — anchored to real practice. Falls short of 5 because it never states the actual actions or artifacts (e.g., producing requirements/design/tasks documents or running a phased workflow), and above 3 because it lists more than 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and well-qualified ('Use when medium-to-large changes need... especially for multi-module work, unclear acceptance criteria, or architecture-heavy requests'), but the 'what' is never stated as an action — the sentence is entirely a when-clause, with the skill's behavior only implied through nouns. This mirrors anchor 3 (one half clear, the other weakly implied) rather than 4, which requires both halves present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-language coverage: 'requirements', 'technical design', 'task planning', 'multi-module work', 'acceptance criteria', 'architecture-heavy requests'. Not 5 because common synonyms users actually say — 'spec', 'specification', 'feature', 'PRD' — are absent; not 3 because coverage goes beyond 'some relevant keywords' with multiple natural trigger phrases.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The requirements + design + task-planning trio for medium-to-large changes carves a fairly distinct pre-implementation niche. Not 5 because broad terms like 'architecture-heavy requests' and 'task planning' overlap with general planning and architecture skills; not 3 because the combined trigger set is clearly more specific than generic workflow skills.