Conciseness

The body is lean with tight sections and no padding of known concepts, matching the 4 anchor ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'). The Installation section re-explains generic git workflow ('git fetch origin main', 'git log --oneline HEAD..origin/main', pinning to a reviewed SHA) that Claude already knows, which keeps it below the 5 anchor; it is well above the 3 anchor since this is the only over-explained area.

Actionability

The 5-phase pipeline and slash-command examples are concrete, but the core operational detail is missing: the plan-file format, the 'context brief' structure, the review 'checklist and anti-pattern catalog', and the 'plan mutation protocol' are named but never specified, and no bundle files exist to hold them. This matches the 3 anchor ('some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details') rather than the 4 anchor, where the guidance is mostly executable.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 5-phase pipeline is a clear sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint ('Fixes all critical findings before finalizing') and per-step 'verification commands, and exit criteria', matching the 4 anchor ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'). It falls short of the 5 anchor because there are no concrete feedback-loop or error-recovery procedures for the review or mutation phases.

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned file (When to Use, How It Works, Examples, Key Features, Installation, Requirements) with appropriate overview content, matching the 4 anchor ('good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'). It is not the 5 anchor because the substantial material the body promises (checklist, anti-pattern catalog, mutation protocols, plan template) has no home at all — neither inline nor in one-level-deep reference files.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'one-PR-sized steps with self-contained context briefs, dependency graph with parallel-step detection, adversarial review gate, and plan mutation protocol' — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities. It clearly matches the 5 anchor ('multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage') and is not the 4 anchor because no meaningful capability gap remains.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (construction plan with dependency graph, review gate, mutation protocol) and when ('Use when planning a large feature, refactor, or roadmap that spans multiple PRs or sessions'), with concrete trigger phrases plus explicit negative scoping ('not for single-PR tasks or when the user says "just do it"'). This fully matches the 5 anchor and exceeds the 4 anchor, whose 'when' is less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'planning a large feature', 'refactor', 'roadmap', 'spans multiple PRs or sessions' are what users would actually say, matching the 4 anchor's 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. It falls short of 5 because common variations such as 'break down a project', 'migration', or 'epic' are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-session/multi-PR planning niche is distinct, and the negative triggers ('not for single-PR tasks') further reduce mis-triggering against generic planning or single-task skills, matching the 5 anchor's 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'. It is not the 4 anchor because there is no meaningful overlap with closely related skills left unstated.