Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but repeats itself noticeably: the audit-trail-vs-execution-source-of-truth distinction is restated at least four times (Step 3 note, Step 3b intro, Step 4/5 output text, After Planning), Agent Context requirements appear in both Step 3 and a dedicated section, and phase ordering is given twice. This fits the 3 anchor (some unnecessary explanation, could be tightened) rather than 4's 'minor instances' since the repetition is systematic; not 2 because there is no padding of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Highly concrete guidance: exact output paths (docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-{topic}-plan.md), command vocabulary (beads:epic, beads:dep, beads:label), a worked 6-phase decomposition, good/bad test-spec examples, and verbatim user-facing messages. Fits the 4 anchor (mostly executable, minor gaps) rather than 5 because the actual beads:* invocation syntax is never shown and several code blocks are placeholders.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps with explicit checkpoints: a beads availability check with a documented inline fallback mode, RED/GREEN gates in Agent Context blocks, verification and approval checklists, and feedback loops ("If changes needed... I'll update both the plan and beads issues"). This matches the 5 anchor; no validation gaps were found.

Progressive Disclosure

A single one-level-deep reference (references/template.md, verified to exist) is well-signaled four times with clear purpose statements, and sections are clearly headed. Fits the 4 anchor rather than 5 because the body inlines template-like detail (required sections list, phase ordering, Agent Context fields) that duplicates what template.md already provides.

Specificity

"Consumes research artifact or topic and produces compact implementation plan with test specs and Agent Context blocks" lists several concrete actions in a named domain. It matches the 4 anchor (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5 because "Plan phase of RPI methodology" leans on methodology jargon and coverage of what the skill does is slightly incomplete.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("produces compact implementation plan with test specs and Agent Context blocks") and when ("Use after research or to start planning a non-trivial feature"). The explicit 'Use after...' clause with concrete trigger conditions matches the 5 anchor, not 4 where the 'when' is only adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are present: "implementation plan", "planning", "research", "non-trivial feature". Good keyword coverage but a few natural synonyms (e.g., "roadmap", "spec", "design doc") are missing, matching the 4 anchor rather than comprehensive 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Plan phase of RPI methodology" and "Agent Context blocks" carve a clear niche with distinctive vocabulary. Minor overlap risk remains with generic planning/roadmapping skills because "plan" is a common word, fitting the 4 anchor rather than 5.