Conciseness

The body is dense, project-specific instruction with no padding ("DRY。YAGNI。TDD。频繁 commit。") and no basic-concept tutorials, but a few passages explain reasoning Claude largely already knows ("你对能一次放入上下文的代码推理得最好，文件越专注你的编辑越可靠", the small-files rationale in 文件结构, and the long bracketed guidance in 审查重点). Minor trimmable over-explanation = 4, not 5.

Actionability

Fully concrete and copy-paste ready: exact save path "docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md", complete plan-header and task templates, runnable verification commands ("pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v", "git commit -m \"feat: add specific feature\""), a 5-item self-check, and exact handoff dialogue scripts. The one deliberately flexible step ("用一行说明做法") is explicitly justified by the skill's decision-vs-copy rule.

Workflow Clarity

The process is explicitly sequenced — announce ("我正在使用 writing-plans 技能创建实现计划") → scope check → file structure → task decomposition → write plan → 自检 → handoff — with a 5-item validation checklist (spec coverage, step scan, type consistency, review focus, proportion) and an explicit fix-then-continue feedback loop ("如果发现问题，直接内联修复").

Progressive Disclosure

A single-file skill with no bundle files to reference; sections are clearly organized and cross-skill dependencies are well signaled ("必需子技能：使用 subagent-driven-development"). Everything appropriately lives in SKILL.md at this size, though the ~40 lines of plan/task templates could move to reference files as the skill grows — good structure with minor organization headroom = 4.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("规格说明或需求用于多步骤任务时使用，在动手写代码之前") but states no concrete action — it never says the skill writes implementation plans or what it produces. This matches 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is above 1 because the domain is concrete, but below 3 because zero actions are listed.

Completeness

Only the 'when' half is present ("当你有规格说明或需求用于多步骤任务时使用，在动手写代码之前"); the 'what' is entirely absent — the description never states that the skill creates implementation plans decomposing specs into testable, committable tasks. This exactly matches anchor 2 ('only when is present without what', e.g. 'Use when working with documents') and cannot be 3, whose anchor requires a clear 'what'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural keywords are present ("规格说明", "需求", "多步骤任务", "写代码"), but common variations and synonyms are missing — most notably the skill's own core term "计划"/"plan"/"规划", plus phrases like "实现方案" or "拆解任务". Good enough to be above 2's generic level, but not 4's 'good coverage with a few missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger scenario (holding a spec/requirements before implementation) is somewhat specific, but because the deliverable ('plan') is never named, the description could overlap with adjacent development-workflow skills (brainstorming, spec drafting, executing-plans). Somewhat specific but residual overlap risk = 3.