Conciseness

The phase prompts are dense and earn their tokens, but the '[Extended thinking: The strangler fig pattern, named after the tropical fig tree...]' block explains a concept Claude already knows, and the generic 'Instructions' bullets ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs') plus the near-empty Use/Do-not-use sections add padding. Mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation, matching anchor 3.

Actionability

The body gives concrete subagent types, full verbatim Task-tool prompts, expected outputs, configuration flags, and quantified success criteria — near copy-paste guidance. It falls short of anchor 5 due to placeholders requiring fill-in ('[list from prioritized roadmap]', '$ARGUMENTS', 'python-pro or golang-pro (based on target stack)') and reliance on subagent types whose availability is not established. Clearly above anchor 3, which would require pseudocode or missing key details.

Workflow Clarity

Five phases are clearly ordered with each step consuming the previous step's outputs ('Context from previous', 'Expected output'), and explicit validation and feedback loops are present: characterization tests before refactoring, contract tests in CI, automatic rollback triggers ('error rate >1%, latency >2x baseline'), staged rollout 5%→25%→50%→100% with 24-hour observation periods, and 30-day zero-traffic verification before decommissioning. This matches the anchor-5 example of a clear sequence with explicit validation and error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good (phases, configuration, success criteria), but all five phases of detailed prompts are inlined in one ~135-line file, and the single reference — 'open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`' — points to a file that does not exist (no references/, scripts/, assets/, or resources/ bundle is present), so navigation to detail is broken. Structure present but the reference is neither clearly signaled as part of a real bundle nor usable, matching anchor 3.

Specificity

Names the domain ('legacy system modernization using the strangler fig pattern') and a couple of actions ('gradual replacement of outdated components', 'maintaining continuous business operations'), but the actions are abstract and buzzword-tinged ('comprehensive', 'enabling') rather than a list of concrete operations, matching anchor 3. Not 4 because it does not enumerate several specific actions; not 2 because more than minimal action is stated.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (orchestrate gradual legacy modernization via the strangler fig pattern), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. The description is also truncated mid-word ('through ex'), further limiting what is explicitly stated.

Trigger Term Quality

'legacy system modernization' and 'strangler fig pattern' are relevant keywords, but common natural phrasings users would actually say — 'legacy code', 'migration', 'refactoring', 'monolith' — are missing. Some relevant keywords but missing common variations, matching anchor 3 rather than 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Legacy system modernization using the strangler fig pattern' carves a clear niche with distinct terminology; only minor overlap risk with closely related refactoring or migration skills. Matches anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than 5, since no explicit trigger phrases distinguish it from those neighbors.