Conciseness

The body is lean and list-driven with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but a few editorial flourishes could be trimmed: "These are the things that often live only in senior-engineer memory", "If this statement is weak, the implementation will drift", "The goal is not to create another planning stack." Matches anchor 4 (efficient, minor over-explanation trimmable); not anchor 5 because those motivational lines don't earn their tokens, not anchor 3 because nothing rises to unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

Concrete, executable instruction-level guidance throughout: a four-step workflow with named sub-deliverables, an exact output-format skeleton (CAPABILITY / CONSTRAINTS / IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT / NON-GOALS / OPEN QUESTIONS / HANDOFF), a template path, and named follow-on lanes. Not anchor 5 because there is no worked example of a completed capability statement or filled output; not anchor 3 because the guidance is specific enough to execute directly without guessing.

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence (Restate → Resolve constraints → Define contract → Translate into execution) ends in an explicit decision gate: "ready for direct implementation / needs architecture review first / needs product clarification first", reinforced by non-negotiable rules. Not anchor 5 because there are no validate-and-retry feedback loops (e.g., revisiting the restatement if weak is advised but not structured as a loop); not anchor 3 because the handoff classification is an explicit checkpoint and no destructive/batch cap applies to a planning skill.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized single-file structure (~135 lines) with clear section headers and no nested references; the one referenced path, "docs/examples/product-capability-template.md", is clearly signaled. Matches anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps); not anchor 5 because the under-50-line simple-skill exception does not apply and the template reference cannot be verified against a bundle; not anchor 3 because nothing is buried and structure is clean.

Specificity

"Translate PRD intent, roadmap asks, or product discussions into an implementation-ready capability plan" and "exposes constraints, invariants, interfaces, and unresolved decisions" name several specific actions and outputs. It falls short of anchor 5 because the actions remain abstract ('translate', 'expose') rather than enumerating multiple discrete concrete operations, but sits above anchor 3 since it covers the domain plus multiple named artifacts.

Completeness

Both parts are present: a clear what ("Translate PRD intent... into an implementation-ready capability plan that exposes constraints, invariants, interfaces, and unresolved decisions") and an explicit trigger ("Use when the user needs an ECC-native PRD-to-SRS lane instead of vague planning prose"). Not anchor 5 because the 'when' relies on internal jargon rather than concrete user-sayable phrases; not anchor 3 because the 'when' is explicitly stated, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "PRD intent", "roadmap asks", and "product discussions" are present, but the description leans on jargon users would not naturally say ("ECC-native PRD-to-SRS lane") and misses common synonyms such as 'spec', 'requirements doc', or 'implementation plan'. Matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing variations) rather than anchor 4's 'good coverage with a few missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (PRD-to-capability-plan translation before multi-service work) with distinct triggers, at most overlapping with closely related planning/spec-writing skills. Matches anchor 4; not anchor 5 because "product discussions" is broad enough to brush against general planning skills.