Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative throughout ("Never defer work required by the plan... complete it now or mark the implementation `BLOCKED`") with no concept tutorials, but the ten-bullet "Apply these implementation principles" block restates generic engineering wisdom Claude already knows ("Prefer the simplest solution... Apply KISS and YAGNI", "DRY shared structure") and could be trimmed. It fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than level 5's 'every token earns its place', and is far too lean to fall to level 3's 'noticeably verbose'.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: the store-resolver bash block is copy-paste ready, the two `bench file read`/`bench file write` snippets include the exact Python transform, dispositions are enumerated as literal values (`FIXED`, `NOT A FINDING`, `TRACKED FOLLOW-UP`, `DECLINED`), and handoff ends with an exact terminal marker "end the response with exactly `VALIDATION: GREEN`". Only standard `{plan-name}`/`{NUMBER}` placeholders need substitution, which still matches 'copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

Six explicitly numbered steps ("## 1. Establish context" through "## 6. Verify and hand off") with mode dispatch up front, dedicated validation checkpoints ("After each coherent task, ask: 'How do I prove this actually works?'"), error-recovery feedback loops ("Fix the proven cause and rerun the affected proof", bench exit 3 "changed since you read it": run it again), and a closing checklist ("Confirm the intended implementation or required corrections are complete, unrelated work remains untouched..."). This matches 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists'.

Progressive Disclosure

The only bundle reference is "read `templates/implementation-report.md` and follow that structure exactly", but no bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, assets/, or templates/), so navigation dead-ends; meanwhile ~195 lines of content that could be split out (the two bench live-page protocol sections with scripts, the implementation-principles block) are inlined. Structure and section titles are genuinely good — above level 2's 'minimal structure' — but the dangling mandatory template plus monolithic inline content fits 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline' better than level 4's 'minor organization gaps'.

Specificity

"Implements and validates existing PRP plans and corrects reviewed or failing-CI pull requests" names several distinct concrete actions (implement, validate, correct from review reports, correct from CI failures) in a specific domain. It falls short of level 5's 'comprehensive coverage' because the actions stay at workflow altitude with minor gaps (no mention of the commit/PR/report deliverables), but it clearly exceeds level 3's '1-2 concrete actions'.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: what — "Implements and validates existing PRP plans and corrects reviewed or failing-CI pull requests"; when — "Always use when executing an implementation plan, ... or when the user invokes /prp-implement", a literal 'Use when' clause with multiple concrete trigger phrases. This matches level 5 exactly; the level 3 cap for a missing 'Use when' clause does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrasings are comprehensively covered with synonyms: "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, or when the user invokes /prp-implement". Each entry path (plan, issue, review, CI, delegation, slash command) has its own natural phrasing, matching level 5's 'comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms' rather than level 4's 'a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The PRP framing ("existing PRP plans", "PRP review report", "when another PRP workflow reaches its implementation or correction step") carves a clear niche, but the first trigger — "executing an implementation plan" — is unqualified, so any generic implementation-plan request could pull this skill over a sibling non-PRP executor. That is 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' (level 4) rather than level 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.