Conciseness

The body is dense and prescriptive but noticeably repetitive and padded in places: the "Build-current/index-current procedure" name is restated at least five times, and editorial asides like "the plan travels with the work it drives", "interleaving other work between the gate and the commit is how the gate gets skipped", and "'the fix doesn't work' is more often 'the fix never loaded'" could be trimmed without losing instruction. It is not a 2 because there is little explanation of concepts Claude already knows — nearly every line is skill-specific guidance; it is not a 4 because the repetition and rhetorical asides are more than minor.

Actionability

Most guidance is executable: exact commands like "scripts/evidence-provenance.mjs read-plan --repo <root> --generated-plan <candidate>", "node gitnexus/dist/cli/index.js analyze --index-only --pdg", "cd gitnexus && npm run build", and a concrete commit message format. It is not a 5 because the MCP tool calls (impact, detect_changes, status --json) are described semantically rather than as complete copy-paste invocations, and some parameters are placeholders that require assembly.

Workflow Clarity

The four-phase sequence is explicit with validation checkpoints throughout: a two-layer drift check, assumption re-verification, a pre-completed check, impact gates before every edit, detect_changes gating every commit with a defined stage → gate → commit unbroken sequence, and explicit failure handling (partial/truncated results block commits; procedure failure blocks completion). Feedback loops are present for every failure mode, including routing back to gitnexus-plan Deepen mode. This clearly matches the top anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: the deep evidence-provenance protocol is correctly delegated to the real, well-organized references/evidence-provenance.md (one level deep, clearly signaled), and the body uses clear section headings. It is not a 5 because the ~60-line inline "Build-current/index-current procedure" section is substantial content that could live in a reference file (the body even leans on it as a named procedure), and Phase 1's drift-check details partially duplicate the reference's territory.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "implements step by step with GitNexus impact checks before every symbol edit", "tests from the plan's scenarios", and "detect_changes gating every commit" — giving comprehensive, specific coverage of what the skill does. It is not a 4 because there are no minor gaps: every core execution behavior is named.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" ("implements step by step with GitNexus impact checks before every symbol edit, tests from the plan's scenarios, and detect_changes gating every commit") and the "when" ("Use when executing an engineering plan produced by gitnexus-plan (or a small bounded task directly)") with concrete example trigger phrases. Not a 4 because neither half needs more specificity.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural phrases users would say ("executing an engineering plan", "execute the plan", plan-file paths) plus three concrete example invocations. It is not a 5 because common synonyms like "implement the plan", "carry out", or "run the steps" are missing, and several trigger terms ("GitNexus impact checks", "detect_changes") are repo-specific jargon rather than natural user phrasing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is anchored to a clear niche — plans produced by gitnexus-plan — with distinct example invocations like "/gitnexus-work docs/plans/...gitnexus-plan...md". Minor overlap risk remains with a generic "execute the plan" request or a sibling plan-execution skill, since "execute the plan" alone doesn't identify gitnexus-plan as the source, so it does not reach the minimal-conflict bar of 5.