Conciseness

The body is procedural rule-density rather than concept padding (no 'what is git' explanations), so it is above a 2, but it is noticeably over-long: the SHA256 normalization procedure is repeated nearly verbatim in Step 0 and Step 5, the '--parallel' sequential-prefix warning appears three times (Step 1.2.c, Step 1.4, Plan File Handling), and rationale prose like 'AI-generated code benefits greatly from extensive logging because...' assumes less competence than Claude has. Substantial tightening via deduplication is possible without losing meaning.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact commands ('Bash: git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD', 'git worktree add ../${DIRNAME}-<branch-name-with-hyphens> <branch-name>', 'mkdir -p <configured plans dir>'), exact machine-readable markers ('<!-- aif:task-kind:commit -->', '<!-- aif:plan-mode:ultra -->'), a complete AskUserQuestion script, and a step-by-step sequential numbering algorithm with glob patterns and an abort condition. Nothing is left as pseudocode or vague direction.

Workflow Clarity

Steps are numbered and explicitly sequenced (Step 0 pre through Step 6 plus subcommands) with early-return jumps clearly marked ('--list and --cleanup execute immediately and STOP'). Validation and feedback loops are explicit throughout: strict branch-drift equality check with a STOP, ultra bundle-integrity checks ('Fix broken links, missing/duplicate task IDs, orphan phase files'), and the meaning-preservation gate with PASS/FAIL and a repeat-comparison repair loop.

Progressive Disclosure

The three reference files (EXAMPLES.md, TASK-FORMAT.md, ULTRA-FORMAT.md) are real, one level deep with no nested chains, and clearly signaled at the right points ('read references/ULTRA-FORMAT.md before creating or modifying the bundle'). However, the ~1,200-line body inlines large detail blocks that clearly belong in references — the ~60-line Handoff branch-ownership contract, the hashing procedure, and sequential-numbering edge cases — so the split between overview and detail is imbalanced.

Specificity

Concrete actions are named — 'Plan a feature or task in fast, full, or ultra mode' and 'Ultra creates an indexed multi-file bundle with deeply specified phases for execution by a smaller model' — but fast/full capabilities are only summarized, leaving minor coverage gaps. Not a 5 because several capabilities (preferences, branch/worktree flow, roadmap linkage) are never mentioned; not a 3 because more than 1-2 specific actions with differentiated modes are explicitly stated.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: what ('Plan a feature or task in fast, full, or ultra mode. Ultra creates an indexed multi-file bundle...') and when ('Use for "plan", "new feature", "start feature", "create tasks", or exhaustive implementation planning') with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor that clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present: 'plan', 'new feature', 'start feature', 'create tasks', 'exhaustive implementation planning'. A few common variations are missing (e.g., 'implementation plan', 'task breakdown', 'break down this feature'), so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of a 5 but is well above the partial coverage of a 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The planning niche is fairly distinct ('exhaustive implementation planning', ultra bundle delegation), but 'plan' and 'create tasks' are broad triggers with minor overlap risk against task-management or generic planning skills. It is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk rather than a fully clear niche.