Conciseness

Quotes the repeated checkpoint surfaces — each phase has a 'PHASE_X_CHECKPOINT' list, then '<verification>' restates CONTEXT_COMPLETENESS/IMPLEMENTATION_READINESS/PATTERN_FAITHFULNESS/VALIDATION_COVERAGE/UX_CLARITY, and '<success_criteria>' restates them again. Mostly efficient and free of concept-teaching fluff, but the verification/success_criteria duplication could be tightened. Not a 3 because of this redundancy; not a 1 because it does not explain concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Quotes the copy-paste executable PRP store resolver bash block ('_gd="$(git rev-parse ..."') and concrete discovery commands ('ls -la', 'ls -la */ 2>/dev/null | head -50'), plus fenced output templates for phase context, plan references, and the APPROACH_CHOSEN/RATIONALE/ALTERNATIVES_REJECTED block. Fully executable guidance with specific examples. Not a 2 because the code/commands are concrete and copy-paste ready rather than pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Quotes a clearly sequenced Phase 0–6 process with explicit checkpoints, a 'GATE: If requirements are AMBIGUOUS → STOP' feedback loop, and 'FINAL_VALIDATION before saving plan' with per-category checklists. The Mode Select routing (link vs create) is explicit. Not a 2 because validation steps and feedback loops are present and explicit, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Quotes mandatory reads 'templates/plan-template.md', 'templates/ux-diagram-format.md', 'templates/report-format.md' and 'workflows/update-references.md', none of which exist in the bundle (only references/agent-prompts.md, references/task-block-format.md, references/validation-commands.md are present). The existing references are well-signaled and one level deep, but four referenced paths are missing, breaking navigation. Not a 3 because the navigation points at absent files; not a 1 because the structure that exists is cleanly organized with a Resources index rather than a monolithic wall of text.

Specificity

Quotes 'Create comprehensive feature implementation plan with codebase analysis and research' and 'wires bidirectional back/forward references between existing plans' — multiple concrete actions (plan creation, codebase analysis, research, reference wiring) rather than vague language. Not a 2 because it lists several specific actions, not just a domain plus partial actions.

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' ('Create comprehensive feature implementation plan with codebase analysis and research') and 'when' via an explicit 'Use when the user wants to plan a feature...' clause. Not a 2 because the trigger is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes 'Use when the user wants to plan a feature, turn a PRD into an implementation plan, "link two plans", "add a back/forward reference", "connect related plans", or invokes $prp-plan' — natural phrases users would say, covering planning, PRD conversion, and linking. Not a 2 because it covers multiple natural variations rather than just one or two keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Has a clear niche (implementation planning plus the update-references workflow) with a distinct invocation token '$prp-plan' and specific triggers like 'link two plans' that are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not a 2 because the triggers are specific rather than overlapping with generic skills.