Conciseness

The advisory-mode paragraph is a ~250-word single-block legalese sentence ('It is a cooperative workflow pause, not a security fence or permission system...'), and the 'local evidence is not host-issued authority' disclaimer repeats in at least four sections (advisory, ontology review, handoff contract, goal-mode suggestions). Anchor 2 fits: noticeably verbose with several padded sections; it avoids a 1 only because it does not explain concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete commands ('$ralplan "task description"', 'omx ralplan run --task <arguments> [--session <id>]', 'omx ralplan preflight --json'), an exact handoff record schema ({authorized, reason, authorized_at, session_id, review_cycle, source}), and specific artifact paths ('.omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md') give mostly executable guidance. Minor gaps keep it below 5: '<arguments>' is unspecified, 'Follow the Plan skill's full documentation' has no path, and the RALPLAN-DR summary's shape is only implied.

Workflow Clarity

The eight-step consensus loop has explicit sequencing ('await completion before step 4', 'Do NOT issue both agent calls in the same parallel batch'), a bounded re-review feedback loop (max 5 iterations with revise-and-return), and blocked-reviewer handling. Structural defects hold it at 4 rather than 5: the empty '## Behavior' heading (line 40), the unnumbered role-routing preflight paragraphs wedged between steps 2 and 3, and a second numbered intake sequence competing with the main workflow.

Progressive Disclosure

The body has section structure, but ~145 lines of dense policy prose (advisory boundaries, native role-routing rules, the durable handoff contract) are inlined in SKILL.md with no bundle files to offload detail to. References that do exist are vague or buried: 'Follow the Plan skill's full documentation' names no path, and 'templates/AGENTS.md' / 'src/hooks/keyword-registry.ts' appear mid-paragraph. Anchor 3: some structure, but content that should be separate is inline and references are not clearly signaled.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Consensus planning stage') and the role pipeline ('Planner -> Architect -> Critic handoff to $ultragoal'), which is more than generic domain-naming (anchor 2) but stops short of the several concrete actions anchor 4 requires — it never says what the stage produces (execution-ready plans, PRD/test-spec artifacts, sequential review evidence).

Completeness

The 'what' is stated (a consensus planning stage feeding $ultragoal via a role pipeline), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere, so the rubric's completeness cap of 3 applies. It is above anchor 2 because the 'what' is not vague, and below anchor 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'consensus planning', 'Planner', 'Architect', and 'Critic' are phrases an ecosystem user might naturally say, so it clears anchor 2; but common variations and synonyms ('plan review', 'design review', 'spec planning', 'task planning') are missing, which keeps it at anchor 3 rather than 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Planner->Architect->Critic pipeline and '$ultragoal' are distinctive markers within this ecosystem, but 'planning' alone is generic and the body itself acknowledges a closely related Plan skill ('Follow the Plan skill's full documentation for consensus mode details'), so overlap with similar planning skills remains plausible — anchor 3.