Conciseness

The body is lean and telegraphic, explaining nothing Claude already knows; every section adds operational value. Not 5 because there is minor duplication — the no-stage/no-commit/no-push rule appears in both Procedure step 8 and Execution Boundaries, and the lens/boundary-field lists repeat across Procedure, Stage Arc Boundary, and References.

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready commands are given throughout: 'git status --short', 'rg -n "validation|rollback|scope|files_allowed"', 'python3 -m py_compile', './bin/ask skills audit <skill-path> --level strict --json --robot', plus a complete YAML output template and two concrete worked examples. Not 4 because the guidance is fully executable with only justified parameter placeholders, not gaps.

Workflow Clarity

An 8-step procedure with pre-edit state checks, explicit pass/fail/blocked validation recording, and a fix-once-then-hand-off feedback loop ('If validation fails, fix once inside scope and re-run the same command. If it still fails, stop and hand off'). Not 4 because validation checkpoints are explicit and error recovery is fully specified, including blocked-exit paths.

Progressive Disclosure

The References section is well-signaled with topical labels, but every path traverses outside the skill directory ('../../references/spec-plan-runtime-boundary-contract.md', '../../../../Infrastructure/references/...') and none of the referenced files exist in this bundle; meanwhile the bundle's actual reference files (contract.yaml, evals.yaml, task-profile.json) are never linked from the body. Not 4 because navigation is unreliable within the shipped bundle; not 2 because the body itself is well-sectioned and the references are clearly labeled rather than buried.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'editing files, running validation, preserving unrelated work, and recording rollback and handoff evidence' — covering the workflow comprehensively, and uses third-person voice ('Executes bounded implementation work...'). Not 4 because coverage of the skill's actions is complete rather than having minor gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Executes bounded implementation work from approved specs... by editing files, running validation...') and when ('Use when asked to implement, execute a plan, apply changes, or build a scoped feature') with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

'implement, execute a plan, apply changes, or build a scoped feature' are natural phrases users would say, plus domain nouns 'approved specs, plans, issues, or small fixes'. Not 5 because common variations like 'make this change' or 'do this fix' are missing and generic terms such as 'apply changes' are included instead of sharper synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'asked to implement... apply changes' overlaps with virtually any general coding/implementation skill, though 'approved specs, plans' and 'bounded' narrow the niche. Not 4 because the trigger phrases would readily match requests meant for general implementation or edit skills; not 2 because the approved-source and bounded-scope framing does distinguish it from generic file helpers.