Conciseness

The body is mostly lean, but the 'omx explore is deprecated' note appears verbatim in both Execution_Policy and Tool_Usage, the 80%/90% quality thresholds are repeated in Execution_Policy, Final_Checklist, and the Advanced review-criteria table, and the 'Outcome-first framing' paragraph is padded and confusing. Mostly efficient but could be tightened — anchor 3, not 4 because the redundancy goes beyond a single minor instance.

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: named tools with invocation hints (omx question, omx sparkshell, ask_codex with planner/analyst/critic), a mode-selection trigger table, a defined plan output format, and measurable thresholds (80% file/line citations, 90% testable criteria). Minor gaps — no example plan snippet and vague steps like 'consult Analyst for hidden requirements' — so anchor 4 rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequencing: a mode-selection table maps triggers to behaviors, each mode has numbered steps, output structure is specified, and the Final Checklist plus stop conditions serve as checkpoints. This is not a destructive or batch operation so no cap applies; minor validation gaps (e.g. no explicit 'verify file refs exist' step in the generation flow) keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed at this size; sections are clearly labeled (Purpose, Use_When, Steps, Tool_Usage, Advanced) and the Advanced material (question classification and review criteria tables) is compact enough to remain inline. Good structure with minor organization gaps (the misplaced 'Outcome-first framing' paragraph inside Steps) — anchor 4.

Specificity

'Lightweight planning with optional interview' names the domain (planning) and one mode (interview) but lists no concrete actions such as creating or reviewing work plans. It matches anchor 2 (names the domain but actions are minimal or generic); it is not level 3 because no specific action verbs like 'creates', 'saves', or 'evaluates' appear.

Completeness

The 'what' is vague ('Lightweight planning') and there is no 'Use when...' clause or any trigger guidance at all, which caps completeness at 3; the vague what plus missing when matches anchor 2 exactly. It is not level 1 because the domain is at least named.

Trigger Term Quality

'planning' is a natural keyword a user would say, but the description contains no synonyms or variations (e.g. 'plan', 'work plan', 'scope a task'). Some relevant keywords exist, yet common variations are missing — anchor 3 rather than 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Planning' is a broad domain that overlaps with other planning, roadmap, or task-breakdown skills; 'optional interview' narrows it slightly. Somewhat specific but still overlapping — anchor 3, not 4 which requires a clearly distinct niche.