Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative with zero fluff and no didactic explanation of git/PR/CI basics, but it spends tokens on things Claude already knows: "Prefer the simplest solution that solves the actual problem. Apply KISS and YAGNI", "Use the type system to express meaningful invariants", "Write focused tests that prove changed behavior and acceptance criteria, not one test per function", and the bench write-refusal semantics ("exit 3 'changed since you read it': run it again") are stated twice, once for the live plan page and once for the live review page. Roughly 10% of the body could be trimmed, matching anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened"). Not 4: the generic-principles list plus the duplicated protocol text exceed 'minor instances'; not 2: there is no padding and the bulk is load-bearing novel workflow machinery.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: a complete store-resolver bash script, two copy-paste-ready bench update pipelines (read/modify/write with --expect), exact commands ("bench open <plan>.plan.html", "/prp-plan publish <absolute plan path>"), exact paths ("$PRP_DIR/reports/{plan-name}-report.md"), and exact status strings and dispositions ("FIXED", "NOT A FINDING", "TRACKED FOLLOW-UP", "DECLINED", "VALIDATION: GREEN"). Placeholders like {plan-name} are clearly parameterized, matching anchor 5's own generic-filename example. Not 4: no key details are missing — every step carries an exact command, path, or status string.

Workflow Clarity

Six numbered steps with explicit validation checkpoints at every stage: step 3 mandates "run every applicable command or procedure in the plan's Validation section and prove every Acceptance criterion"; feedback loops are explicit ("When verification fails, test the observation method as a competing hypothesis... Fix the proven cause and rerun the affected proof"; bench exit-3 retry; "mark the report BLOCKED, and return the concrete blocker"); step 6 is a literal handoff checklist ending in a terminal gate ("VALIDATION: GREEN"/"VALIDATION: FAILED"). Textbook match for anchor 5; the destructive/batch cap does not apply because validation is pervasive rather than missing. Not 4: checkpoints are explicit and recovery loops are specified, not merely present.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: clear sections (Mode, steps 1-6, Resources) and a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ("read templates/implementation-report.md and follow that structure exactly", reiterated in Resources with its purpose). Matches anchor 4 ("good structure; most content appropriately placed; references mostly clear; minor organization gaps"). Not 5: nearly all operational content is inlined — the conditional bench/live-page protocols (~35 lines most runs skip) could live in a reference file, and the referenced mandatory template is not present in the provided bundle, so the reference cannot be verified; not 3: the references that are made are clearly signaled and the structure is strong.

Specificity

"Implements and validates existing PRP plans and corrects reviewed or failing-CI pull requests" names three concrete action classes (implement, validate, correct) spanning the skill's modes, matching anchor 4 ("several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage"), whose example also lists three actions. Not 5: the commit/PR-delivery outcome the body treats as core ("through a validated commit and pull request") is absent, leaving a minor coverage gap; not 3: more than 1-2 concrete actions are explicitly stated.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: what — "Implements and validates existing PRP plans and corrects reviewed or failing-CI pull requests"; when — "Always use when" followed by five concrete trigger phrases. This clearly matches anchor 5 ("clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases"). Not 4: the when-clause is maximally explicit rather than one that "could be more explicit or specific".

Trigger Term Quality

The when-clause enumerates comprehensive natural trigger phrasings — "executing an implementation plan", "implementing an issue that already has a local or published plan", "correcting a PR from a PRP review report or CI failure", "when another PRP workflow reaches its implementation or correction step", "when the user invokes /prp-implement" — including synonyms (correcting/correction) and variations (review report or CI failure). A user needing this skill would phrase the request in one of these ways; file extensions are not applicable to this domain. Best fit is anchor 5, not 4, since no natural phrasing for the niche is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche — the implementation/correction step of the PRP pipeline — with distinct triggers ("/prp-implement", "PRP review report", "another PRP workflow reaches its implementation or correction step"). Planning, review, and commit scopes are excluded by the trigger conditions, so conflict with closely related PRP skills is minimal. Matches anchor 5 ("clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk"); anchor 4's "minor overlap risk" would require a closer overlap than the unqualified "executing an implementation plan" phrase presents within this ecosystem.