Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative, and assumes Claude's competence — no concept explanations, no filler. It falls short of 5 only because a few rules are stated twice (the GitHub second-copy rule appears in both Start and Output, and the no-commit rule is restated after the validation checklist), which could be consolidated.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: exact commands (`git rev-parse --show-toplevel`), exact paths (`.factory/FACTORY.json`, `.factory/tickets/<ticket-id>/`), exact frontmatter fields (`type`, `qa`, `blocked_by` with their allowed values), named tools and calls (`grill-with-docs`, `caller_ping`, `subagent_done`), and templates in references. Per the scoring notes, the absence of code is not penalized since every instruction is concrete.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (Start → Resolve uncertainty → Build the plan → Validate → Output) is explicit, and 'Validate and hand off' is an eight-item verification checklist (criterion mapping, acyclic dependencies, no speculative work, no commits) that gates finishing. It is not 4 because validation is explicit and error-recovery paths are covered — the caller_ping/waiting/resume loop and the 'if it replies that the session is shutting down, stop' handling — and not lower because the skill's operations are explicitly non-destructive (no commit/push/merge).

Progressive Disclosure

The ~60-line body is a clear overview that delegates templates and output format to two well-signaled markdown links, [references/artifacts.md](references/artifacts.md) and [references/output.md](references/output.md), both of which exist and point no deeper — one level of nesting exactly. Verified against the actual bundle listing, the split is appropriate: artifact and template detail lives in references while the body keeps the workflow.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete outputs — 'producing a local plan, dependency-ordered task files, and only the durable context or ADR updates the ticket earns' — which comprehensively covers the skill's deliverables without generic filler. It sits at the comprehensive anchor rather than 4 because no meaningful capability of the planning flow is left unlisted.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'Research and plan one ticket, producing...' (what) and 'Use before implementation when a feature, bug, refactor, performance task, or investigation needs to become executable work' (when, with concrete trigger conditions). This matches the anchor that requires both what and when with concrete trigger phrases, not the 4-anchor where the 'when' is only loosely specified.

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger clause names natural task-type keywords users actually say — 'a feature, bug, refactor, performance task, or investigation' — plus 'before implementation'. It falls short of 5 because common phrasings users might use ('plan this feature', 'break this down into tasks', 'spec') are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is well carved — 'one ticket', 'dependency-ordered task files', 'ADR updates' distinguish it from generic helpers. It does not reach 5 because 'research and plan' plus the broad task-type list could overlap with closely related spec/ticket-writing skills when a user asks generically to 'plan' work.