Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but has real redundancy: RED/GREEN gate-failure handling appears both in the orchestration loop (step 2f) and again in full under "Agent Isolation Discipline"; the three-agent roles are explained three times (Purpose, Agent Isolation Discipline, Context Compaction); and the progress-report example appears in both the body and the reference. This matches anchor 3 — could be tightened — rather than 4's minor trimmable instances.

Actionability

The guidance is highly executable: exact loop pseudocode, exact execution-log line formats, concrete beads:ready/show/close/create commands, specific remediation issue titles/labels/dependency wiring, and copy-paste agent prompt templates in references/workflow-detail.md (a verified real file). It sits just below anchor 5 because a few operational details — how remediation attempt counts are tracked, what command constitutes each gate check — are left implicit or deferred to issue descriptions.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (RED/GREEN/VALIDATE gates), feedback loops for error recovery (remediation → re-validation with a 2-attempt cap), escalation paths to the user, session recovery, and quality checklists in the reference. This matches anchor 5 exactly.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview with a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ([workflow-detail.md](references/workflow-detail.md)) that exists in the bundle. It falls short of anchor 5 because content is not perfectly split: the remediation procedure and the progress-report example are fully spelled out in both the body and the reference, a minor organization gap matching anchor 4.

Specificity

"Executes beads-driven task graph using isolated agents for test-first discipline" names the domain and a couple of actions, but "beads-driven task graph" and "RPI methodology" are internal jargon rather than concrete user-recognizable capabilities. It lists only 1-2 concrete actions, matching anchor 3 rather than 4's several specific actions.

Completeness

Both what ("Executes beads-driven task graph using isolated agents for test-first discipline") and when ("Use when executing an implementation plan from the draft skill") are explicitly present. It falls short of anchor 5 because the when clause covers a single scenario with no additional concrete trigger phrases (e.g., resuming an interrupted session).

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when executing an implementation plan" is a natural phrase a user would say, but common variations and synonyms ("implement the plan", "build from the plan", "resume implementation") are absent from the description. This fits anchor 3 — some relevant keywords but missing common variations — rather than 4's good coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Implement phase of RPI methodology... executing an implementation plan from the draft skill" carves a clear niche within the Research→Plan→Implement pipeline, keeping conflict risk low. However the generic word "Implement" leaves minor overlap risk with general coding/build skills, matching anchor 4 rather than 5's minimal conflict risk.