Conciseness

The body is dense, directive prose with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, e.g. "Branch on `status`" and "Pass the brief verbatim. Do not restate, summarize, or reinterpret it." A handful of Rules-section bullets restate inline directives ("Do not answer the skill's clarification questions on the user's behalf" appears in both step 2 and Rules), and the step-3 rationale paragraph ("its assumptions are guesses about what the user meant...") could be trimmed, which keeps it below anchor 5.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact branch conditions ("`needs_clarification` -> No plan was written"), a runnable example ("$sce-change-to-plan \"add dark mode to settings\""), and a specific command ("`sce setup --bootstrap-context` owns that"). It is instruction-only rather than code, which the rubric does not penalize, but the actual emitted handoff command and plan-file format are delegated to phase references rather than fully specified inline, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

Four numbered steps in explicit order, each with a `status` branch (bootstrap_required/loaded, needs_clarification/blocked/plan_ready), defined gates ("Render the Missing context bootstrap gate layout"), explicit waits and stops, and a feedback loop where revisions re-run the Plan authoring phase ("Branch on `status` exactly as in step 2"). This matches anchor 5: clear sequence with explicit validation via status branching and error-recovery loops; the missing-validation cap does not apply since this is a planning workflow that never destructively modifies anything outside context/plans/.

Progressive Disclosure

The body holds only control flow and dispatches to four real, one-level-deep reference files via an explicit table ("| 1 | `references/context-load.md` |") and per-step instructions ("Read a step's reference before taking any action for that step"), with `references/plan-template.md` deferred until a plan is actually written. This matches anchor 5: clear overview, well-signaled single-level references, easy navigation.

Specificity

"Turn one change request into a scoped SCE plan" names the domain (SCE planning) and one concrete action (converting a request into a scoped plan), matching anchor 3. It is not anchor 4 because it omits the clarification, blocked, revision, and handoff behaviors the body defines, and not anchor 2 because the action named is specific rather than generic.

Completeness

"Turn one change request into a scoped SCE plan in one self-contained workflow" gives a clear 'what' but the 'when' is entirely absent, matching anchor 3 ("Has a clear 'what' but 'when' is missing or only weakly implied") and respecting the judging guideline that a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

The only candidate keywords are "change request" and "plan"; the description lacks the natural phrases and synonyms a user would say (e.g. "scope a change", "make a plan", "plan this feature") and has no "use when" phrasing, matching anchor 2. It is not anchor 3 because even common variations are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"SCE plan" carves out a distinct niche with minor overlap risk against generic planning skills, matching anchor 4 ("Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills"). It is not anchor 5 because the description offers no distinct trigger phrases to separate it from other planning/scoping skills.