Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative, and free of concept explanations Claude already knows — every section is instruction, matching 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'. It is not 5 because of redundancy: the sync-debt inspection rules ("inspect every completed task's `Context synchronization` field... Never infer `synced`") duplicate `references/plan-review.md`, and 'read the reference before running the phase' is stated in the table, again per step, and again in Rules.

Actionability

Fully executable instruction-only guidance: exact token parsing rules ("`task-id` is present only when the token matches a task ID (`T01`, `T02`, ...)"), exhaustive named-status branching, concrete emitted commands ("`/next-task {candidate-path}`"), and named layouts to render, satisfying 'specific examples cover the common cases'. Not 4 because there are no gaps — every step's action, gate, and stop is specified, with detail correctly delegated to the reference phases.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-4 are explicitly sequenced with validation gates before side effects (plan review before implementation, approval gate before edits) and feedback loops for error recovery (sync debt → re-invoke plan review; "If that lifecycle write fails, treat the outcome as `blocked`"), matching the top anchor. Not 4 because checkpoints are explicit at every branch, including failure paths, rather than mostly present.

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a clean control-flow overview with a step-to-reference table ("Read before running the phase"), and all five referenced bundle files (`plan-review.md`, `task-execution.md`, `context-sync.md`, `output.md`, `sync-report.md`) exist one level deep with clear navigation — matching 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'. Not 4 because content is appropriately split with no buried or missing references; the one lateral pointer (`context-sync.md` → `sync-report.md`) stays flat within the references directory.

Specificity

"Review, approve, implement, verify, and synchronize one SCE plan task" lists five distinct action verbs scoped to a single domain object, matching 'several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'. It is not 5 because the actions are abstract lifecycle verbs with no concrete objects (no mention of what is reviewed or produced, and 'SCE' is unexplained), and not 3 because it goes well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (review, approve, implement, verify, synchronize one SCE plan task), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 2 because the 'what' is concrete and specific, and not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely implicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural workflow terms are present: "review", "approve", "implement", "verify", "synchronize", "plan", "task" — good keyword coverage matching 'a few natural terms missing'. It is not 5 because common variations users would say ("next task", "run", "continue", "execute") are absent, and not 3 because coverage is good rather than merely 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"one SCE plan task" carves a clear niche that would not fire for generic document or code skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. It is not 5 because the skill body reveals sibling SCE skills (e.g., `sce-decision`) with which a user's request could overlap, and the description itself carries no phrase as distinctive as the skill's own 'next task' name; not 3 because the domain scoping is specific, not generic.