Conciseness

The body re-explains concepts Claude already knows ("Acquisition = strangers → aware (top of funnel)" through "Revenue = monetization") and gives generic writing advice ("No jargon for jargon's sake. Direct claims, named tradeoffs, explicit assumptions"), and it inlines near-complete duplicates of reference-file content such as the full five-tier funding list ("Pre-seed / bootstrapped — $0–$2K/mo... Series B+ — $150K+/mo paid") that also lives in references/funding-stage-unlocks.md. This exceeds the level-4 anchor's 'minor instances of over-explanation,' matching 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not a 2 because the bulk is dense, skill-specific material (state machine, π-shaped hire guidance, the 3-3-2-2-2 rule, the budget formula) rather than padded generality.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: exact invocation syntax with worked examples ("/marketing-plan quietude.app"), an explicit file-layout tree (~/marketing-plans/{client-slug}/progress.md, sections/01.md, final_plan.md), a copy-paste budget formula ("[(New ARR / (ARPC × 12)) × CAC] / annual retention rate"), precise output-format rules ("Headers... are H2 for clean Notion paste," "use §N"), and ten verbatim intake questions. This matches the anchor for fully executable, specific guidance covering the common cases; the absence of code is not penalized per the scoring notes.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear and state-driven ("fresh → INIT → REVIEW → FINALIZE → finalized"), per-section approval is saved incrementally ("Save each confirmed section to the progress file as you go"), interruption recovery is defined ("run /marketing-plan client-name again to pick up at the next unfinished section"), and FINALIZE has an explicit verification pass ("confirm cross-references... check for machine-specific paths... ensure the brand voice matches") plus a safety guard ("Finalized plans are never silently overwritten"). This matches the level-4 anchor (clear sequence, most checkpoints, minor validation gaps) rather than 5 because the verification pass has no explicit fix-and-re-verify feedback loop and INIT has no sufficiency checkpoint (unknowns are handled only indirectly via 'Open decisions').

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with uniformly well-signaled one-level references — 17 "references/..." pointers, all resolving to real files (11 of the 13 bundle files cited directly), each with consistent phrasing like "Full rubric in references/current-state-rubric.md" and "Detail in references/client-types.md." The two files not cited in the body (example-quietude.md, measurement-framework.md) are cited from references/plan-template.md exactly where the workflow needs them, and content is appropriately split with only decision-relevant summaries kept inline. This matches the top anchor (clear overview, appropriately split, easy navigation); there is no genuine organization gap that would justify dropping to 4.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "Generates an exhaustive 13-section plan structured by AARRR (Acquisition, Activation, Retention, Referral, Revenue), customized to the client's current budget, team, and stage, mapped to future funding milestones, cross-referenced with the 139-idea marketing-ideas library and an embedded 17-section current-state audit rubric" plus a concrete output artifact ("Outputs a Notion-paste-ready markdown document"). This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; the level-4 anchor ("minor gaps in coverage") understates it, and there is no verbosity penalty to apply since every clause states a concrete capability in third person.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly and concretely. What: "Generates an exhaustive 13-section plan structured by AARRR... customized to the client's current budget, team, and stage." When: "When the user needs a comprehensive marketing plan for a client, a company they advise, or their own product. Also use when the user mentions 'marketing plan,' 'growth plan,'..." This matches the top anchor (clear explicit what AND when with concrete trigger phrases); the level-4 anchor's weaker 'when could be more explicit' does not apply given the enumerated trigger list.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger coverage is comprehensive with synonyms and abbreviation variants users would naturally say: "marketing plan," "growth plan," "GTM plan," "go-to-market plan," "AARRR plan," "90-day marketing plan," "12-month marketing roadmap," "fractional CMO plan," "fCMO plan." It covers full-name, acronym, timeframe-based, and persona-based phrasings, matching the anchor for comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms; nothing common is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (fCMO-level marketing planning) and actively routes adjacent needs to siblings ("For positioning and ICP context before planning, see product-marketing. For stage-specific deep work, see onboarding, signup, emails, referrals, pricing"), so it is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk — matching the level-4 anchor. It is not a 5 because the description omits the negative boundary present in the body (do not use for single-channel execution or bare idea brainstorming), so phrases like "growth plan" or "GTM plan" could still pull it in when a channel-specific or marketing-ideas skill is the right choice; it is well above the level-3 anchor's 'somewhat specific' overlap risk.