Conciseness

The body avoids concept padding but repeats the same material across sections — launch-window-planner is linked eight times, and the 'never writes the registry directly / authorized operation: propose' rule is restated four times (Scope guard, Writes, step 8, Save Results). This is 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' (3) rather than 'minor instances of over-explanation' (4).

Actionability

Concrete paths ('memory/launch/launch-tier-planner/YYYY-MM-DD-<launch-name>-tier-plan.md'), a checkable kill-criteria example ('roll back if error rate exceeds the pre-launch baseline by the agreed multiple for 30+ minutes'), and explicit decision rules ('When the answers conflict, recommend the lower tier and say why') make the guidance mostly executable. It falls short of 5 because output shapes are delegated externally ('Emit the standard shape from skill-contract.md §Handoff Summary Format') with no inline template for the tier plan, effort matrix, or risk-register rows.

Workflow Clarity

Eight well-sequenced steps include guards (check the registry 'so the plan does not contradict it', the launch-stacking spacing check, the lower-tier conflict rule) and completion criteria ('Done when: ... checkable kill criteria / rollback thresholds for each top risk'). Checkpoints are present but distributed rather than explicit per-step validate-fix loops, matching the 4 anchor instead of the 5 anchor's explicit validation steps.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clearly organized with a dedicated Reference Materials list, one-level-deep references, and a Next Best Skill navigation block — good structure per the 4 anchor. It does not reach 5 because the bundle contains no files to verify, all references (ramp-benchmark.md, skill-contract.md, CONNECTORS.md, SECURITY.md, sibling SKILL.mds) point outside the skill directory via ../../../ paths, and cross-skill routing detail that could live in a reference is inlined in the Scope guard.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete actions with parenthetical detail — 'produces a tier decision (Tier 1 flagship all-channel / Tier 2 targeted / Tier 3 changelog-level), a launch-type declaration..., an effort calibration matrix..., D0/W1/M1 KPI targets..., a risk register (likelihood x blast-radius, owners, mitigations, kill criteria / rollback thresholds), and a T-8w to T+4w timeline skeleton' — matching the 5 anchor's comprehensive multi-action coverage in third-person voice, with no coverage gaps that would drop it to 4.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'when' ('Use when the user asks to...') with concrete trigger phrases and 'what' (the full produces-list of six deliverables), which is exactly the 5 anchor; a 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit or generic, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

It leads with natural phrases a user would actually say — '"plan my launch tier", "how big should this launch be", or "build a launch risk register with kill criteria"' — and covers synonyms (tier/size, risk register, kill criteria, rollback thresholds), matching the 5 anchor's comprehensive natural-term coverage rather than the 4 anchor, which expects missing variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (launch sizing/tiering) is distinct and the description adds explicit negative boundaries — 'Not for picking the launch date or window — use launch-window-planner; not for creator-channel launch campaigns — use campaign-planner' — giving minimal conflict risk per the 5 anchor rather than the 4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk'.