Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence (no basic-concept explanations), but has minor trimming opportunities: the 'Purpose' section repeats the 'When to Use' bullets, 'Phase Boundaries' overlaps 'Anti-Patterns to Avoid', and 'Context Compaction' explains rationale Claude could infer. It is noticeably above the mostly-efficient level-3 anchor, but not the every-token-earns-its-place level-5 anchor.

Actionability

Highly actionable: explicit output paths, a 4-step beads procedure, required Agent Context fields, a full worked 6-phase epic decomposition, and concrete good/bad test-spec examples. It stops short of level 5 because the exact beads command syntax ('beads:epic', 'beads:dep') is not copy-paste executable — it is notation referencing another tool, and details are deferred to the template reference.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow (consume research → scope → plan → review → next steps) is clearly sequenced, with explicit validation gates (RED/GREEN gates, per-phase verification checklists, 'Ask if they want any changes before proceeding'), error-recovery loops, and session-recovery guidance. This matches the level-5 anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with a real, verified one-level-deep reference (references/template.md exists and contains the plan template and beads issue description templates), clearly signaled with an annotated link. It is not level 5 because some material that could live in the reference — e.g., the good/bad test-spec example triplets and the Agent Context field contract — is inlined in a ~230-line body, leaving minor organization gaps.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'task breakdown, dependency mapping, test specifications, and acceptance criteria' plus 'a phased plan with Agent Context blocks and a beads task graph' — giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill produces. It is not the level-4 case because there is no meaningful gap in the action coverage; each named deliverable is a distinct, concrete output.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is concrete ('Transforms a research artifact or feature topic into a compact implementation plan with...') and the 'when' is an explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple concrete trigger scenarios. This matches the level-5 anchor exactly; level 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific, which is not the case here.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present: 'planning a non-trivial feature', 'designing architecture', 'writing a technical spec', 'breaking down implementation steps before coding'. A few common synonyms users might say (e.g., 'spec out', 'create a roadmap', 'estimate/scope work') are missing, which keeps it below the comprehensive level-5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a distinct niche (research-to-plan compaction with a beads task graph) and its triggers are scoped ('non-trivial feature', 'before coding'). However, 'designing architecture' and 'writing a technical spec' are broad phrases that overlap with general planning/architecture skills, so minor conflict risk remains — the level-5 anchor demands minimal conflict risk with distinct triggers throughout.