Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative directives with zero padding — "Implement one task. Keep the change no larger than the task's observable outcome requires." — and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (no TDD tutorials, no git basics). Every line is either a directive, a boundary, or part of the required output contract, matching the lean anchor 5 rather than anchor 4 where trimming would still find fat.

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete: exact file paths (`.factory/CONTEXT.md`, `.factory/evidence/<ticket>/<task>/manifest.json`), explicit manifest fields, a copy-paste output template, and exact status values (`ready_for_review`). It falls short of anchor 5 on small gaps: the state command is elided ("`node …/factory-supervise/scripts/fstate/cli.mjs`") and the manifest is specified by field list rather than by a worked example, but it is far above anchor 3's pseudocode level.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and checkpointed: contract establishment with dependency/share gating, a numbered proving-slice loop that requires confirming the test "fails for the expected reason", explicit artifact proof ("A compile, typecheck, file timestamp, or self-report is not proof"), and an error-recovery loop ("If implementation repeatedly fights the sketch, stop... and redesign") plus plan-conflict escalation. This matches anchor 5's clear sequence with validation steps and feedback loops; no destructive/batch cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise orchestration overview that keeps the four task playbooks in a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ([references/playbooks.md](references/playbooks.md), verified present) and delegates proof procedure to a single clearly linked sibling skill ([../prove-it-works/SKILL.md](../prove-it-works/SKILL.md)). The split is appropriate — the per-task playbook detail and verification procedure stay out of the main file, and the inline output template is the per-run contract, matching anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions and artifacts — "Implement one dependency-ready ticket task in an isolated worktree using a small design sketch, behavior-first tests, the appropriate task playbook, and bounded verification" — which goes beyond the 1-2 actions of anchor 3. It stops short of anchor 5 because it does not enumerate the deliverables it produces (evidence manifest, status transitions, the structured result template), leaving minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is "Implement one dependency-ready ticket task in an isolated worktree..." and the 'when' is an explicit trigger clause, "Use for the work stage after ticket planning." The when clause is concrete and stage-anchored, matching anchor 5 rather than anchor 4 where the when is only weakly specific.

Trigger Term Quality

It carries good domain keywords a caller in this pipeline would naturally use: "ticket task", "worktree", "work stage", "ticket planning". It misses a few natural variations such as "implement", "build", or "coding stage", keeping it at anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5, but it is well above the sparse keyword sets of anchor 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"dependency-ready ticket task", "isolated worktree", and "the work stage after ticket planning" carve out a clear pipeline niche that is unlikely to collide with planning or review skills. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because the description never names the factory system itself, so a generic 'implement a task' skill in the same library presents minor overlap risk.