Conciseness

Mostly efficient procedural writing, but with repeated content that could be tightened: the 'read every file / do not skip / research integrity' injunction appears in the preamble, Phase 2 ('Do not skip files', 'Do NOT skip any files'), and Important Notes; and the '### Design Language (from template)' section (~15 lines of palette/typography/layout prose) duplicates what the template file itself is read for ('Read the template ... for the design language only'). Not score 2 because there is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding for its own sake; not score 4 because these duplications are noticeable rather than minor.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: exact shell commands with platform variants ('stat -f %Sm -t %Y-%m-%d' / 'stat -c %y | cut -d' ' -f1'), exact output paths ('/tmp/compound-planning/extraction-{batch-name}.md'), copy-paste-ready extraction and reduction prompts, numeric batching thresholds (≤10 / 11-30 / 31-80 / 80+), and a concrete hook-file path with replace/merge/keep handling. Not score 4 because there are no material gaps in executability for an instruction-only skill.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0-6 are clearly sequenced with an explicit gating rule ('Each phase must complete fully before the next begins'), and validation checkpoints with feedback loops are present for the batch operations: verify extraction counts against the Phase 1 inventory, re-launch timed-out agents for just the unprocessed files, warn and offer full-mode switch when fewer than 3 new denied files exist, and Key Rules requiring real data with no fabrication. Not score 4 because both the checkpoints and the error-recovery loops are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with well-signaled, verified, one-level-deep bundle references: [references/claude-code-fallback.md](references/claude-code-fallback.md) is correctly gated behind fallback mode, the parser script and 'assets/report-template.html' are linked with clear purpose statements. Not score 5 because ~130 lines of HTML design specification (palette, typography, per-section layout, adaptation rules) are inlined in SKILL.md — a natural candidate for a separate design reference — and the design-language prose partially duplicates the template file. Not score 3 because references are clearly signaled and the inline content is legitimately the core deliverable spec, not misfiled reference material.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'extract denial patterns, feedback taxonomy, evolution over time, and actionable prompt improvements', 'produce a polished HTML dashboard report', and a concrete fallback ('Falls back to Claude Code ExitPlanMode denial reasons'). Coverage of the skill's capabilities is comprehensive and nothing is vague fluff; it cannot be score 4 because there are no minor gaps in the action list.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly and concretely answered, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description — per the judging guidelines this caps completeness at 3. Not score 2 because the 'what' is explicit and detailed rather than vague or absent.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with domain-natural terms like 'Plannotator plan archive', 'denial patterns', 'feedback taxonomy', and 'ExitPlanMode denial reasons'. It falls short of 5 because common user phrasings and synonyms are missing — e.g. 'denied plans', 'plan feedback', 'plan review analysis' — and no file-path or extension triggers are given.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche — Plannotator plan-archive analysis with an explicitly stated Claude Code fallback — with distinct, product-specific trigger terms unlikely to collide with other skills. The fallback sentence also pre-empts overlap ambiguity with generic Claude Code log-analysis skills.