Conciseness

The body is dense with domain-specific facts Claude does not reliably know ("Anyone >85% sustained is a throughput-collapse risk", "Q1 35%, Q4 15%", "span of control crosses 7 ICs/manager"), so it avoids the concept-explanation sin. But it could be tightened: the "Distinct from" section largely re-states the frontmatter differentiation, canon citations repeat across questions (Reinertsen and Hopp & Spearman each cited three times), and the 'one at a time, write answers down' discipline is exhorted three times. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than 'minor instances' (4) or 'several padded sections' (2).

Actionability

The quick example is copy-paste executable ("cd business-operations/skills/capacity-planner && python3 scripts/capacity_modeler.py --sample") and the Scripts section documents concrete flags (--profile, --input, --output, --sample) that verifiably exist in the scripts. However, only one of the three scripts gets a ready-to-run invocation, no example --input JSON is shown inline, and the example's `cd` path assumes a repo location that may not match the installed skill. 'Mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' fits.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with validation checkpoints: a stop-condition in step 1 ("If you only have averages, stop and pull the distribution"), a diagnostic branch in step 3 ("Spread >30 percentage points across team means UNBALANCED — fix that before hiring"), and the seven-question forcing library is an explicit pre-commit checklist with recommended answers and computed thresholds ("If P(breach at P90) > 10% you are understaffed"). This is an analysis skill, not a destructive/batch one, so the ≤3 validation cap does not apply; the content matches the 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops; checklists' anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The split is appropriate and verified against the actual bundle: canon material lives one level deep in references/ ("queueing_theory_canon.md … The math", "ops_workforce_planning_canon.md … The people factors"), the fill-out template in assets/, and the anti-patterns are summarized inline as a 'Top eight' with the full taxonomy externalized — all referenced files exist. The forcing-question library inline is the skill's core discipline rather than misplaced detail. Clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete capabilities — "sizing ops capacity, building a headcount plan, modeling utilization risk, planning Q3 capacity or annual support capacity, or designing CS coverage" — and the specific math deliverables ("Erlang-C queueing math, P90 demand sizing, shrinkage-adjusted FTE, manager-trigger thresholds, and a quarterly hiring sequence with ramp + attrition"). This matches the anchor for comprehensive coverage of concrete actions; there are no vague filler phrases, so it is not the level below ('minor gaps in coverage').

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what it does ("needs Erlang-C queueing math, P90 demand sizing, shrinkage-adjusted FTE, manager-trigger thresholds, and a quarterly hiring sequence with ramp + attrition") and when to use it with multiple concrete triggers ("Use when an ops leader … is sizing ops capacity", "Apply when sustained team utilization is above 80% or when the team is growing >50% in 12 months", "Run before committing the headcount budget"). This matches the top anchor; a 'Use when' clause is present, so the ≤3 cap does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases an ops leader would say are well covered: "headcount plan", "sizing ops capacity", "utilization", "Q3 capacity", "annual support capacity", "CS coverage", plus role titles ("Director of CX, Head of Support, VP Ops"). A few common synonyms such as "staffing plan", "agent staffing", or "FTE model" are missing, which fits the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive-synonyms anchor above.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is sharply defined — ops teams handling queued work — with explicit negative boundaries: "This is NOT engineering capacity (see vpe-advisor for DORA + cycle time) and NOT strategic 3-year workforce planning (see chro-advisor)". Clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, matching the top anchor.