Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative with no tutoring of known concepts, but the ~28-line extension-hook procedure (enabled filtering, condition handling, dot-to-hyphen command conversion, output templates) is duplicated verbatim for before_plan and after_plan. That matches 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' — not 2, since the redundancy is the only notable padding and the remainder is lean; not 4, because the duplication is a real, avoidable token cost that a single shared procedure would eliminate.

Actionability

Most steps are concrete and executable: the exact command '.specify/scripts/bash/setup-plan.sh --json', specific paths (.specify/memory/constitution.md, CLAUDE.md SPECKIT markers), a shell-quoting escape example, and exact output templates for each hook type. It falls short of 5 because 'Update agent context by running the agent script' never names the script or command, and the plan workflow defers to an external IMPL_PLAN template whose structure is not reproduced — minor gaps that keep it from copy-paste readiness throughout.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (Setup → Load context → Execute plan workflow → Stop and report → post-hooks), phases carry prerequisites ('research.md complete'), and validation checkpoints exist: gate evaluation with 'ERROR if violations unjustified', NEEDS CLARIFICATION markers resolved in Phase 0, and a post-design Constitution Check re-evaluation. Not 5 because there is no recovery loop for gate failures beyond 'ERROR', and failure handling for the setup script/JSON parse is unspecified; comfortably above 3, which requires missing or merely implicit checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned (User Input, Pre-Execution Checks, Outline, Phases, Key rules) at ~135 lines with no bundle files, and it appropriately defers bulk detail (the plan structure) to the project's own IMPL_PLAN template rather than inlining it. This matches 'Good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' — the minor gap being the duplicated hook boilerplate living inline. Not 5 because the file exceeds a lean overview and the repeated hook block would sit better in a shared reference section.

Specificity

The description states the domain ('implementation planning workflow') and two actions ('Execute... using the plan template to generate design artifacts'), but 'design artifacts' is generic and never names what is actually produced (research.md, data-model.md, contracts, quickstart.md). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — not 4, which requires several specific listed actions, and not 2, since it goes beyond merely naming the domain.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('Execute the implementation planning workflow... to generate design artifacts') but the 'when' is entirely absent — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the when-condition is not merely implicit-and-improvable, it is missing altogether.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'implementation planning', 'plan template', and 'design artifacts' are relevant, but the natural phrases a user would say — 'spec-kit', 'speckit', 'feature spec', 'implementation plan', 'specify' — are absent, and no synonyms or 'Use when' phrasing appears. This fits 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than 4's 'good keyword coverage with only a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Implementation planning workflow' is somewhat specific and unlikely to collide with unrelated skills, but without mentioning spec-kit, feature specs, or .specify, it could overlap with generic planning/design skills. This matches 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' rather than 4's 'mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against closely related skills'.