Conciseness

The ~40K-character body restates the same constraints in three or four places ("Eliding a key is a defect" appears in rule 9, step 3, step 5a, and the Output Format section) and pads rules with incident post-mortems ("observed 2026-09-06, `plan-affected-surface-scout`: the two scout rows for `documents/` and `.codex/` had no bullet...", "2026-09-06: `plan-recommends-root-over-symptom` offered three DB-side variants...") and multi-clause rationale asides ("a dispatch you launched and never collected has cost turns and bought nothing, and the pull to shrug and enumerate the tree yourself is strongest exactly there"). This matches anchor 2 ('noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections') rather than anchor 1, since the verbosity is self-written process prose, not explanations of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete and copy-paste ready: a canonical frontmatter YAML block, exact SALP row format (`- [REF:fr:<id> | <FR-ID>] — <one-line summary> — <status>`), exact insert strings (`- **Tasks:** [REF:task:<YYYY>-<MM>-<slug> | <slug>]`), and runnable commands (`mkdir -p`, `date +%Y-%m-%d`, `ls .claude/agents/ .cursor/agents/ .opencode/agent/ "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/agents/" 2>/dev/null`). Per the rubric's instruction-only note, the absence of program code isn't penalized because every instruction carries an exact format or command; this matches anchor 5 ('fully executable; copy-paste ready; specific examples cover the common cases').

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–8 are explicitly sequenced with STOP points ("STOP and wait", "Never stop here with nothing written", "TOTAL STOP"), a built-in feedback loop (step 6 critique → step 7 triage/apply), validation checkpoints (5a acceptance-tuple check, completeness check, "Only ambiguity that blocks stating the Goal may halt you"), and a final verification checklist. Anchor 5 ('clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists') is the best fit; the oddly ordered sub-steps (5a, 5c, 5b) is a cosmetic blemish, not a validation gap that would drop it to anchor 4.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and no references at all — the entire skill is one ~40K-character file. Large self-contained blocks that clearly belong in separate files are fully inlined: the ~2.5K-character "Question Format" section, the surface-scout dispatch protocol with host-specific variants (Codex spawn_agent/wait_agent instructions), and the SALP row/back-pointer format rules. This matches anchor 2 ('minimal structure; content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined'); not anchor 1 because the body has clear internal section organization, and not anchor 3 because there are no references to signal and the inlined mass is very large.

Specificity

The description names several concrete actions — "plan a task", "create a task file", "produce a task breakdown in the accepted format", "prepare a critiqued strategy before coding" — plus where it writes ("Writes under the `tasks` role"), matching the anchor 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'. It falls short of 5 because the actions are four phrasings of one planning activity and omit what the skill actually produces (variant options, DoD tuples, index/SRS updates).

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'when' is exceptionally strong ("Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks to..." plus negative scope "Not for design chat or ad-hoc code suggestions"), while 'what' is thinner — "Writes under the `tasks` role" states the location but not the artifact (a critiqued plan in the accepted task format appears only as a trigger phrase). This sits between anchor 4 ('both what and when; one could be more specific') and anchor 5; the thin 'what' keeps it at 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say are present — "plan a task", "task file", "task breakdown", "strategy before coding", "design chat" — giving good keyword coverage per the anchor. Not 5: common variations like "make a plan", "break this down", "planning doc", or a file extension (.md) are missing; not 3 because multiple natural trigger phrasings, not just one generic keyword, appear.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks" plus the explicit exclusion "Not for design chat or ad-hoc code suggestions" give it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, matching the anchor 5 example's structure (positive triggers + explicit scope fence). The ONLY+exclusion combo distinguishes it from general planning, architecting, or implementation skills.