Conciseness

The body teaches no concepts Claude already knows and contains no padded prose, but it repeats itself: [execution-approval-guidance.md] is directed at four times ('Then read...', 'Use ... as the authoritative source...', 'Follow ... for the allowed user-facing outcomes...', 'handled specially by...'), and 'If readiness checks find directly fixable task defects, update the active task in place and re-run the readiness checks before producing user-facing output' is nearly duplicated by 'If readiness checks find issues that can be resolved from existing evidence, update the active task in place and re-run the readiness checks...'. This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than 4, because the duplicate paragraph and consecutive same-target pointers are real trimmable content, and not 2, because there is no over-explanation.

Actionability

Routing directives are concrete and executable — 'Update the same active task file for user-facing review readiness. Do not create a second task artifact', 'Invoke [spec-loop-clarify-task/SKILL.md] in the same turn, then resume this skill after clarification' — with explicit branch conditions. However, the operational core ('readiness checks, diagram-first preparation, duplication removal, user-facing review gating, and approval-seeking output') is entirely delegated to execution-approval-guidance.md, which is not present in this bundle, so the skill alone cannot execute its purpose. Fits anchor 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete, key details missing); not 4 because the gap is central rather than minor, not 2 because the routing-level instructions are specific commands, not high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

The process is coherently sequenced: read prerequisites ('Before work: read [spec-loop-plan-task/SKILL.md] ... Then read [execution-approval-guidance.md]'), update the active task file, run readiness checks, then fix-and-re-run loops ('update the active task in place and re-run the readiness checks before producing user-facing output'), compaction and clarification detours with explicit resume points, and post-approval routing ('implementation work is governed by [spec-loop-implementation-flow/SKILL.md]; investigation work stays under the spec-loop-plan-task task-file path'). Explicit feedback loops and a guard condition ('If no active task file exists ... do not use this skill') are present. Fits anchor 4 (clear sequence, most checkpoints present); not 5 because the sequence is implied by paragraph order rather than enumerated and the checkpoints' substance lives in the absent guidance file; not 3 because fix→re-run gating is explicit, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The router pattern is correct — a short SKILL.md delegating detail one level deep, with each reference clearly signaled and its purpose stated ('as the authoritative source for readiness checks, diagram-first preparation, duplication removal, user-facing review gating, and approval-seeking output'). But the bundle contains only SKILL.md (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), so the primary referenced file execution-approval-guidance.md is absent and the skill's first instruction ('Then read [execution-approval-guidance.md]') dead-ends. Fits anchor 3 (structure present but undermined) rather than 4, because a missing primary reference is more than a minor organization gap, and not 2, because nothing is improperly inlined and references are prominent rather than buried.

Specificity

The description names its domain — 'the task-file path of `spec-loop-plan-task`' and 'execution approval' — but states no concrete action the skill performs; 'Mandatory only on...' and 'Use when...' are pure scoping/trigger conditions with no capability verbs. Matches anchor 2 (names the domain but actions are minimal or generic); not 3 because no 1-2 concrete skill actions are listed, and not 1 because the domain and situation are specific rather than abstract filler.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicitly and concretely answered ('Use when an active task file already exists and the next user-facing action would otherwise present task-file work for evaluation, feedback, review, or execution approval'), but the 'what' is entirely absent — the description never states what the skill does (prepare, gate, format, review-check). This matches anchor 2's 'only when is present without what'; not 3 because that anchor requires a clear 'what', and not 1 because the 'when' clause is detailed and concrete rather than extremely vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Keywords like 'active task file', 'execution approval', and 'evaluation, feedback, review' are the natural vocabulary inside this spec-loop workflow, but the phrasing leans on system jargon ('task-file path', '`spec-loop-plan-task`') and offers no common variations or user-side phrasings such as 'sign off' or 'ready for review'. Fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms); not 4 because synonym coverage is absent, and not 2 because several genuinely relevant trigger terms are present rather than one or two generic ones.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Hard scoping — 'Mandatory only on the task-file path of `spec-loop-plan-task`' and the condition 'an active task file already exists' — carves a clear niche and prevents triggering for chat-only planning or unrelated work. Minor overlap risk remains from the broad words 'evaluation, feedback, review' shared with sibling spec-loop skills and general review skills. Fits anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk); not 5 because those common trigger words keep some ambiguity, and not 3 because the conditional scoping is much tighter than 'somewhat specific'.