Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no background explanations, every section (Goal, Workflow, Scale, Rules, Completion, Output) earns its place, and lines like "Do not spin up coordination for work that one focused pass would finish" are maximally terse. Matches anchor 5 ('Lean and efficient; every token earns its place') — nothing to trim to reach it more fully.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout for an instruction-only skill: named agent types ("delegate to `executor` agents in parallel", "use `team"), explicit handoff targets ("hand off to `review` or `verify`"), and decision rules per scale. Minor gaps keep it below 5 — e.g., no example of what a "durable task list" or "verification evidence" looks like in practice.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit verification ("Verify as you go, not only at the end") and a Completion checklist ("No pending tasks / Tests pass / Verification evidence collected"). It falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no explicit error-recovery loop describing what to do when verification fails, beyond honest reporting ("failures are reported plainly").

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, has no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and needs none — the body is well-organized into clear sections. Per the judging guideline ('For skills under 50 lines with no need for external references, progressive disclosure can score 5 with just well-organized sections'), this matches anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names its domain (task execution) and 1-2 concrete actions with a concrete outcome ("Carry an approved task through to working, verified code"), but coverage is not comprehensive. It fits anchor 3 ('Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') — not 4 because it does not list several specific actions, and not 2 because the action and outcome are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

It has a clear 'what' (carry an approved task to working, verified code) but no 'when' — 'approved' only weakly implies the post-planning context. Matches anchor 3 ('Has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'), and the judging guideline caps completeness at 3 for a missing 'Use when...' clause.

Trigger Term Quality

Only generic keywords appear ("task", "approved", "verified code"); the natural phrases a user would actually say ("implement", "build", "execute the plan", "do it") are missing. This matches anchor 2 ('One or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say') — not 1 because it is not pure technical jargon or entirely generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Approved task" distinguishes it from planning skills, but "carry a task through to working code" broadly overlaps with any implementation or coding skill. Matches anchor 3 ('Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills') — not 4 because execution-type skills would trigger on the same phrasing.