Conciseness

The core process (Steps 1-5) is lean with every instruction earning its place, and redundancy is confined to minor trimmable tail sections — the 'Remember' checklist repeats earlier rules and 'When to Use' is a vacuous sentence ('applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview'). This matches the anchor for efficient content with minor instances that could be trimmed rather than the noticeably padded anchor below it.

Actionability

Guidance is concretely executable for an instruction-only skill: default batch size ('First 3 tasks'), exact announce/report phrases to copy-paste, TodoWrite usage, specific stop conditions, and a named required sub-skill. It is not a 5 because some details are left open (what a report should contain beyond 'show verification output', how to handle ambiguous plan steps beyond 'stop and ask') and not a 3 because there is no vague or pseudocode-level direction.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (Steps 1-5) with explicit validation ('Run verifications as specified', 'Don't skip verifications', verification output required in each report), explicit feedback loops (report → 'Ready for feedback' → apply changes; stop-and-ask on repeated verification failure), a revisit rule, and a closing checklist — matching the top anchor. Validation is present for the batch workflow, so the batch-operation cap of 3 does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a short (~73 lines) self-contained process skill with no content that belongs in separate files; no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist and none are needed, sections are well-organized, and the only pointer (the finishing-a-development-branch sub-skill) is clearly signaled as REQUIRED. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections with no need for external references merit the top score; it is not lower because there is no inlined bulk content or buried/nested referencing.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('written implementation plan to execute') and one generic action with contextual qualifiers ('in a separate session with review checkpoints'), which alone matches the anchor for minimal/generic actions; the second-person phrasing 'Use when you have' triggers the rubric's mandated 1-point reduction from a base of 3, yielding 2. It is not a 1 because the domain and execution pattern are concretely named, and not a 3 because the underlying action list is a single generic verb (execute) with no second concrete capability.

Completeness

Both parts are present: 'what' is 'execute a written implementation plan ... with review checkpoints' and 'when' is explicit ('Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session'), matching the anchor for both present with room for improvement. It is not a 5 because the 'what' is terse and embedded in the trigger clause rather than stated as concrete capabilities, and not a 3 because the 'when' is explicit and specific rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant natural keywords are present ('implementation plan', 'execute', 'review checkpoints'), but common user variations such as 'follow the plan', 'work through the plan', 'implement the plan', or 'carry out' are missing, matching the anchor for some relevant keywords without synonyms. It is not a 4 because a user asking to 'follow' or 'work through' a plan would not clearly match the stated phrasing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is distinct — executing a written plan in a separate session with review checkpoints — with trigger conditions unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the 'mostly distinct, minor overlap risk' anchor. It is not a 5 because it could still overlap with closely related planning/implementation skills (e.g., plan-writing or general code-execution skills), and not a 3 because the 'written plan + separate session + checkpoints' combination is considerably more specific than the anchor's generic document-file examples.