Conciseness

The body is mostly purposeful — status handling, model selection, and red flags are non-obvious guidance — but the process dot-graph duplicates its entire node list as edge labels (~19 redundant lines), the Advantages section restates points from 'When to Use' and the intro, and the example transcript runs long. This is 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' (3) rather than 4, since the edge duplication and repeated comparisons are more than minor padding.

Actionability

Concrete guidance exists (four statuses with explicit handling steps, model-selection heuristics, a never-do checklist, worked example), but the core dispatch content — the three prompt templates — is referenced as './implementer-prompt.md' etc. and none of these files exist in the bundle, leaving the key executable detail missing. This is 'some concrete guidance but incomplete / missing key details' (3); the gap exceeds the 'minor gaps' of 4, while the in-body specificity rules out 2.

Workflow Clarity

The process is fully sequenced with explicit validation gates (spec review before quality review, final whole-implementation review), documented feedback loops ('Implementer fixes spec gaps' → re-review, repeated until approved), status-based decision branches, and a Red Flags checklist. This matches the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and checklists; nothing is missing for 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good and references are clearly signaled in a dedicated 'Prompt Templates' section, but the three referenced files do not exist in the bundle (no references/ directory), so navigation is broken, and the 70-line example transcript is inlined where a separate file could carry it. This lands at 3 ('some structure but could be better organized'); broken references exceed the 'minor organization gaps' of 4, while the solid section structure and one-level reference design rule out 2.

Specificity

The description names its domain ("executing implementation plans with independent tasks") but lists no concrete actions — no mention of dispatching subagents, two-stage review, or any capability. It matches 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is not a 3 because zero concrete actions are stated, and not a 1 because the domain is clearly identified.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit ("Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session") but the 'what' — what the skill actually does — is entirely absent. This mirrors anchor 2 ('only when is present without what', e.g. "Use when working with documents"); it cannot be a 3 or 4 because no capability is described at all.

Trigger Term Quality

"executing implementation plans" and "independent tasks" are phrases users would naturally say, but coverage is thin — missing variations like "implement the plan," "run the plan tasks," or "subagents." Some relevant keywords with common variations missing matches anchor 3; it lacks the breadth of coverage expected at 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is somewhat specific ("implementation plans," "independent tasks," "current session") but overlaps materially with sibling plan-execution skills — the body itself names superpowers:executing-plans as an alternative, and a user could not reliably distinguish them from the description alone. Anchor 3 fits; overlap is more than minor, ruling out 4, but the domain is not broad enough to be 2.