Conciseness

The bulk is tight, concrete instruction, but there is clear tightening room: ~150 lines of inline document templates, a trailing "Important Guidelines" section that re-explains basics Claude already knows ("Test changes as you make them", "Don't assume code works - verify it"), and the "Get Feature Name" prompting procedure repeated across five subcommands. It is not 2 because the padding is a minority of the file; it is not 4 because "Use AskUserQuestion Liberally" and "Always Works Philosophy" largely restate guidance already embedded in the subcommand steps.

Actionability

Every subcommand gives exact file paths (`docs/{name}/RESEARCH.md`), fully specified AskUserQuestion payloads (question, header, multiSelect, options), and copy-paste-ready markdown templates for all three documents. There are no gaps — even the dynamic phase-selection options state their generation rule ("dynamically generated from phases found in IMPLEMENTATION.md, marking completed ones"), so it is not 4.

Workflow Clarity

Each subcommand is a numbered sequence with explicit checkpoints: doc-existence verification ("Check if `docs/{name}/RESEARCH.md` already exists"), Overwrite/Append/Skip confirmation before destructive overwrites, and next-step chaining, with missing docs redirecting to the correct subcommand — plus the status subcommand handling every doc-combination state. It is not 5 because phase completion gates on generic "test as you go" advice rather than a defined, concrete verification checkpoint; it is not 3 because validation and redirect feedback loops are explicit throughout.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a 745-line monolith with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle at all; the three full document templates (~150 lines) and per-subcommand detail clearly belong in separate referenced files. It is not 2 because internal structure is strong (clear `## Subcommand:` and `### Step:` headers, explicit argument-routing table); it is not 4 because nothing is split out or referenced — everything is inlined in one file.

Specificity

The effective frontmatter description is the single word "build" — no concrete actions and no named domain, making it vaguer than the anchor-1 example "Helps with documents". It is not 2 because even "Names the domain but actions are minimal" is not met; there is no domain or action at all.

Completeness

Neither "what" ("build" states no capability) nor "when" (no "Use when..." clause or equivalent) is present in the description field. The fuller sentence "Feature development pipeline - research, plan, track, and implement major features." exists only inside a malformed second frontmatter block, not in the field that frontmatter parsing actually reads.

Trigger Term Quality

"build" is one generic keyword with no natural trigger phrases, matching the anchor-2 example "Works with files". It is not 1 because "build" is at least a word a user might naturally say ("build a feature"); it is not 3+ because there are no relevant multi-word triggers, synonyms, or variations anywhere in the description field.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"build" is entirely generic and would conflict with virtually any coding skill, exactly matching anchor 1 ("Helps with code and documents"). It is not 2 because anchor 2 still implies a broad-but-named scope ("document files"), whereas "build" names nothing.