Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence: no concept explanations, terse bullet lists, and a single quick-start snippet — matching 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed'. Not a 5 because the 'Purpose' section ("Analyzes feature relationships to determine optimal build order...") fully restates both the H1 subtitle and the frontmatter description.

Actionability

The Quick Start is real, mostly executable code (`FeatureAnalyzer(project_dir)`, `await analyzer.analyze()`) plus a concrete output schema — matching 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'. Not a 5 because `project_dir` is never defined, the input format (the feature list from `ac-state-tracker`) is never shown, and `print(analysis.next_feature)` is inconsistent with the documented output key `next_features`.

Workflow Clarity

The five Workflow steps ("1. Load: Read feature list ... 5. Report: Output analysis results") give a sequence but each step is a two-word label with no commands or detail, and there are no validation checkpoints (e.g., what to do when circular dependencies are detected) — matching 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'. Not a 4 because no step is tied to an executable action or error-handling path; the operation is read-only analysis, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: the body is an overview, the implementation is correctly delegated to a real, one-level-deep reference ("See `scripts/feature_analyzer.py` for full implementation"), and the Quick Start import points at that same existing file. Not a 5 because the ~90-line body inlines the full output schema and analysis-type catalog that document the script's own API, leaving a minor organization gap.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "mapping feature relationships, detecting blockers, optimizing build order, or identifying critical paths" — in third person, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It is not a 5 because the opening 'what' statement ('Analyze features and their dependencies') is generic, coverage omits progress/velocity analysis present in the skill body, and 'features' is undefined outside the AC context.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions with concrete triggers: 'what' via "Analyze features and their dependencies" and 'when' via "Use when mapping feature relationships, detecting blockers, optimizing build order, or identifying critical paths" — matching the anchor-5 example structure. It is not a 4 because the 'when' clause is specific and enumerates four distinct triggers rather than being only weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases like "mapping feature relationships", "detecting blockers", "optimizing build order", and "critical paths" match what a user planning implementation order would say. Not a 5 because common variations are missing (e.g., 'dependency graph', 'what to build first', 'task ordering', 'scheduling').

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of "blockers", "build order", and "critical paths" carves a distinct feature-planning niche, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. Not a 5 because "Analyze features" alone is generic and could overlap with general code-analysis or project-planning skills.