Conciseness

The body is dense with operational directives and explains nothing Claude already knows, but the approval-not-execution contract is restated in at least four places ('Plan mode is sticky... never start implementation', 'Approval is not execution', 'Approval authorizes plan creation only', stop rules), and the intent-routing paragraph re-describes review convergence mechanics ('5-round cap... approval-with-notes counting as approval') that references/full-workflow.md owns. Mostly efficient but could be tightened — not 2, since each repetition carries a distinct obligation and there is no filler.

Actionability

Concrete and executable throughout: the scaffold command 'node "<skill-root>/scripts/scaffold-plan.mjs" <slug> [--clear|--unclear] --draft-only [--review-required]', the literal announcement 'ULW-PLAN MODE ENABLED!', exact spawn syntax 'multi_agent_v1.spawn_agent({"message":"TASK: act as an explorer. DELIVERABLE: ..."...})', and exact task-row grammar '- [ ] N. <title>' / '- [ ] F<number>. <title>'. Not 5 because <slug> derivation and the actual plan template are deferred to references, leaving minor gaps in what can be executed from this file alone.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is traceable end-to-end (opening announcement -> grounding -> intent verdict announced -> scaffold script -> parallel exploration -> approval gate -> plan + APPEND -> review -> handoff) with explicit validation checkpoints: 'run a structural self-check over the plan... repair the plan before handoff if any check fails', 'Both invocations are resume-safe no-ops', and terminal stop rules. Not 5 because there is no single numbered phase spine — ordering is distributed across sections and deferred via 'Read the phase you are in'.

Progressive Disclosure

Verified against the actual bundle: references/full-workflow.md, references/intent-clear.md, and references/intent-unclear.md all exist, are purpose-signaled at point of use, and are one level deep (they cross-reference only siblings and scripts/). Not 5 because the 'Delegation (Codex-native)' section inlines substantial spawn/wait/fallback mechanics and then states 'Full spawn/wait/fallback discipline is in references/full-workflow.md' — content that belongs in the reference is duplicated in the overview.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'grounds in the codebase', 'asks only the forks exploration cannot resolve', 'researches them to best practice when the intent is fuzzy', 'waits for explicit approval', 'writes ONE decision-complete work plan' — covering the full workflow. Not 5 because the internal mechanics sentence ('the plan-gated reviewers (metis/momus) stay locked without a user request plus a written .omo/plans plan file') is jargon padding that dilutes the capability statement rather than adding coverage.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ('Explore-first planning consultant (Prometheus) that grounds in the codebase... writes ONE decision-complete work plan a worker executes with zero further interview') and when ('ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user request... Triggers: ...') with concrete trigger phrases. Third-person voice throughout, so no person-voice penalty applies.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage with synonyms and invocation forms: 'ulw-plan, ulw plan, plan this, make a plan, plan before coding, interview me, break this down, start planning, plan mode', plus '/skill:ulw-plan' and 'asking in their own words for a work plan before coding'. Matches the comprehensive-synonyms anchor; no natural phrasing of this request is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The hard activation gate ('ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user request... NEVER self-activates') carves a distinct niche, but generic trigger phrases like 'make a plan', 'plan this', and 'break this down' overlap with everyday phrasing that planning-adjacent skills could also claim. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk — anchor 4, not 5.