Conciseness

The body is dense, rule-oriented, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it is not lean: sections like 'Glossary policy' restate conditional caveats, links to sibling skills are repeated across sections, and several passages could be tightened. This fits the level-2 anchor of mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation or room to tighten.

Actionability

Concrete directives are present ('Work starts in PLAN', 'create or update the active task file before EXECUTION starts', 'use tasks/ as the default task directory') and classification criteria are specific, but the actual procedures are delegated to five local guidance files (e.g. 'read [planning-form-selection-guidance.md] fully') that are absent from the bundle, leaving the body's own guidance incomplete — matching the level-2 anchor of concrete but incomplete guidance.

Workflow Clarity

The flow is sequenced (classify → select planning form → clarification gate → planning content → execution approval → route to implementation/investigation) with explicit checkpoints and feedback loops: the clarification gate, the 'Starting EXECUTION requires explicit user approval' gate, and error routing ('If clarification returns an unresolved blocker... route that work'; 'If drafting later exposes an important open decision, stop and clarify'). This matches the level-3 anchor of clear sequence with explicit validation steps and error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

References are well-signaled and one level deep ('read [common-task-guidance.md] fully', sibling SKILL.md links), and content is appropriately split into clear sections rather than a monolith. However, scored against the actual bundle, none of the bundle directories exist and the five referenced local guidance .md files are missing, so the disclosure path is broken — fitting the level-2 anchor of structure present but navigation not actually functional.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Choose the planning form', 'plan it before execution', 'decide whether the work is taskless, chat-only, a task file... or multiple task files / backlog items', and 'create the needed plan' — matching the level-3 anchor of several specific concrete actions. Imperative voice ('Choose', 'Use this skill to') mirrors the rubric's own good examples, so no voice penalty applies.

Completeness

It states what the skill does ('Choose the planning form... and create the needed plan') and gives an explicit trigger ('Use this skill to decide whether...'), satisfying both the 'what' and 'when' requirements of the level-3 anchor with an explicit 'Use this skill' clause.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some natural terms a user might say ('plan', 'task', 'backlog', 'investigation work'), but the bulk of the trigger vocabulary is internal Spec Loop taxonomy ('taskless', 'chat-only', 'a task file with subtasks') that a user would rarely utter verbatim, fitting the level-2 anchor of relevant keywords missing common variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Spec Loop planning-form niche with its specific taxonomy (taskless / chat-only / task-file / backlog) is a clear, narrow domain unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the level-3 anchor of a clear niche with distinct triggers.