Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no concept padding, every section gives operational instruction. It is not a 5 because the 'do not publish a second copy of a GitHub issue into .factory/tickets when GitHub is the ticket source' rule is stated three times (Start, the to-tickets bullet, and the Output section), which is trimmable redundancy.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: concrete commands ('git rev-parse --show-toplevel'), exact paths ('.factory/FACTORY.json', '.factory/tickets/<ticket-id>/'), named tool calls (caller_ping, subagent_resume), and a fully specified output template. Minor gaps keep it from 5: 'node …/factory-supervise/scripts/fstate/cli.mjs' has an elided path, and several integration steps depend on optional external skills and environment state.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (Start → Resolve uncertainty → Build the plan → Validate and hand off → Output) with an explicit pre-finish validation checklist ('Before finishing, verify that: every success condition maps to at least one task acceptance criterion...') and genuine feedback loops (ask → waiting_for_user → subagent_resume; blocked status naming the unresolved decision). This matches the level-5 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview that appropriately moves artifact file templates (plan.md, task files, adr.md formats) into a single real, one-level-deep reference, [references/artifacts.md](references/artifacts.md), referenced from clearly relevant sections. Navigation is easy and nothing is buried or nested, matching the level-5 anchor.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions in third person ('Research and plan one ticket, producing a local plan, dependency-ordered task files, and only the durable context or ADR updates'), giving good coverage of the planning domain. It falls just short of the level-5 anchor because 'the durable context or ADR updates the ticket earns' is slightly opaque phrasing rather than plainly concrete actions.

Completeness

It clearly and explicitly answers both what ('Research and plan one ticket, producing a local plan, dependency-ordered task files...') and when ('Use before implementation when a feature, bug, refactor, performance task, or investigation needs to become executable work') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the level-5 anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural terms users would say when asking for this: 'plan', 'feature, bug, refactor, performance task, or investigation', 'before implementation'. Coverage is good but misses common phrasings like 'break down into tasks', 'make a work plan', or 'turn this ticket into actionable work', fitting the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (pre-implementation ticket planning producing plan.md and dependency-ordered task files) is mostly distinct with minimal overlap risk. However, 'Use before implementation' is broad enough to slightly overlap with generic implementation or scaffolding skills, so it fits the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor rather than a clear 5.