Conciseness

The body is dense and purely directive with no concept explanations or padding ("Own this workflow from input through its terminal user-visible response"). Minor redundancy keeps it from 5: the Rules section restates step-level directives ("Do not answer the skill's clarification questions on the user's behalf" vs step 2's "Do not answer the questions"; "Read each phase's reference before running that phase" appears both in Phase references and Rules).

Actionability

Fully executable instruction-only guidance: exact status values to branch on (bootstrap_required, loaded, needs_clarification, blocked, plan_ready), exact reference paths, exact field names ("id", "category", "question", "why_blocking"), a concrete command ("sce setup --bootstrap-context"), and exact layout names that all exist in references/output.md. Per the scoring notes, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when guidance is actionable, which it is.

Workflow Clarity

Four clearly sequenced steps with explicit gates (bootstrap gate, clarification gate, blocked), status branching at every decision point, defined wait/resume semantics, and a revise-to-re-author-to-re-render feedback loop (step 4) for error recovery. Not a destructive or batch operation, so no validation cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md holds only the control flow while phases live in one-level-deep reference files, all of which exist (context-load.md, plan-authoring.md, output.md, plan-template.md). A step-to-reference table gives clear navigation, and "Read only the reference for the step you have reached" plus deferring plan-template.md until a write actually happens keeps loading appropriately lazy.

Specificity

"Turn one change request into a scoped SCE plan" names the domain (change request, SCE plan) and a single concrete action, but coverage is not comprehensive — no mention of clarification gates, blocked outcomes, or revision handling. It matches the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; it is not 4 because it does not list several specific actions with minor gaps.

Completeness

The description clearly states what the skill does but contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It fits the anchor 'has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "change request" and "plan" are keywords a user might naturally say, but common variations and synonyms ("scope a change", "turn this into a plan", "plan this change") are missing, matching the anchor 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. It is above 2 because the present keywords are not purely generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"SCE plan" carves a mostly distinct niche unlikely to trigger generic planning skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. It is not 5 because without trigger phrases it retains some overlap risk with sibling SCE workflows (the body itself warns against invoking another SCE skill).