Conciseness

The body is lean with no concept explanations and a working quick-start snippet, close to anchor 5 ('every token earns its place'). It loses a point because the same idea is stated three times in slightly different words — the H1, the opening line 'Coordinate parallel autonomous operations', and the Purpose section 'Manages parallel execution of independent features' — minor padding that could be trimmed.

Actionability

The Quick Start is real, executable code matching the script's actual API, but key details are missing: `project_dir` is never defined, and the hard prerequisite — a feature_list.json in project_dir with a specific schema (id, dependencies, category, passes) — is not mentioned, so the snippet cannot actually be run from the SKILL.md alone. This fits anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details') better than anchor 4's 'minor gaps'.

Workflow Clarity

A rough two-step sequence is present (find_parallel_opportunities → execute_parallel), but there are no validation checkpoints or error-handling guidance (what if no groups are found, how to handle `failed` features, retry semantics). Since execute_parallel is a batch operation, the batch-operations cap applies: missing validation/verification caps workflow clarity at 3.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Purpose, Quick Start, API Reference), and the single bundle file `scripts/parallel_coordinator.py` exists and is correctly referenced as a one-level-deep pointer for the full implementation. This matches anchor 5: a clear overview with a well-signaled, one-level-deep reference and an appropriate split between quick-start content and the bulk implementation.

Specificity

The 'what' is a single generic action — 'Coordinate parallel autonomous operations' — which names the domain but does not enumerate concrete capabilities (finding parallel groups, executing them, handling failures). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; score 4 would require several specific listed actions, which the description lacks.

Completeness

Both parts are present: a 'what' ('Coordinate parallel autonomous operations') and an explicit 'Use when...' clause with four trigger phrases. It is not a 5 because the 'what' is high-level and vague compared to the anchor-5 example ('Extract text and tables from PDF files, fill forms, merge documents'), listing no concrete operations; it is above a 3 because the 'when' is explicit rather than missing.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases 'running parallel features', 'managing concurrent work', 'coordinating multiple agents', and 'optimizing throughput' are natural terms users would say. It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms like 'simultaneously', 'at the same time', 'concurrent execution', or any file/format terms (e.g., feature_list.json) are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills': the parallel-execution niche gives it some identity, but generic trigger phrases like 'managing concurrent work', 'coordinating multiple agents', and 'optimizing throughput' overlap broadly with any orchestration or multi-agent skill. Not a 4 because the description does not convey a clear distinct niche (the actual focus — grouping independent features from a feature list — is not stated, and 'coordinating multiple agents' does not match the implementation).