Conciseness

The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and stays on procedural facts, but the three-agent pattern (Write Test / Implement / Validate) is restated three times — in Purpose, Agent Isolation Discipline, and Context Compaction — and "When to Use" re-treads the description. This is "mostly efficient but could be tightened" (anchor 3) rather than the minor-trim profile of anchor 4.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact execution-log line formats, a completely specified orchestration loop with concrete beads:* commands, precise remediation issue titles ("P{N}: Remediate — {Phase Name} (attempt {M})"), an explicit parallel-dispatch instruction (single message, multiple Task calls), and copy-paste agent prompt templates in the referenced file. This matches anchor 5; anchor 4 would imply gaps in the common cases, and none are apparent.

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced (Identify Epic → Orchestration Loop → Report Progress → Final Verification) with explicit RED/GREEN/VALIDATE gates and a validate → remediate → re-validate feedback loop capped at 2 attempts with escalation to the user. This matches anchor 5's requirement of explicit validation steps plus error-recovery feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The body serves as the overview and correctly splits the bulk detail (agent prompt templates, dispatch details, remediation templates) into references/workflow-detail.md, which exists, is clearly signaled at the point of need ("See [workflow-detail.md](references/workflow-detail.md) for agent prompt templates and dispatch details"), and is one level deep with no further nested references. This matches anchor 5.

Specificity

"Executes beads-driven task graph using isolated agents for test-first discipline" names the domain with 2 concrete actions, but coverage is not comprehensive (gates, remediation, and progress reporting are unmentioned) and the actions lean on project-internal jargon. This matches anchor 3 rather than 4, which requires several listed specific actions with only minor gaps.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the what ("Executes beads-driven task graph using isolated agents for test-first discipline") and an explicit when ("Use when executing an implementation plan from the draft skill"). Not a 5 because the what is expressed through jargon ("beads-driven task graph") that a cold reader cannot resolve, leaving it less than fully explicit and concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when executing an implementation plan" is a natural trigger phrase, but terms like "RPI methodology", "beads-driven", and "test-first discipline" are internal jargon and common user variations (e.g. "build the feature", "work through the plan") are absent. Some relevant keywords exist but synonyms are missing, matching anchor 3 rather than 4's fuller keyword coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The anchoring to the RPI pipeline and the upstream draft skill ("from the draft skill") gives it a clear niche with distinct triggers, matching anchor 4. Not 5 because "implement" / "executing an implementation plan" are generic enough to overlap with ordinary implementation requests, so minor conflict risk remains.