Conciseness

The body is dense and operational (commands, config keys, paths) rather than explaining things Claude already knows, but it is noticeably redundant: plan-discovery rules appear in both Step 0.0 and Step 0.2, ui_language handling is stated twice, two different steps are both numbered 0.3, and the drift-compatibility wording paragraph ("Compatibility wording for the same rule...") restates the rule above it. This fits anchor 3's "mostly efficient but could be tightened" rather than anchor 4, since whole paragraphs, not just minor phrasings, could be cut.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable throughout: exact build/test/lint command tables keyed to detection files ("tsconfig.json → npx tsc --noEmit"), concrete grep patterns ("[T][O][D][O]|[F][I][X][M][E]|HACK..."), a copy-paste report template, a complete aif-gate-result JSON example, and ready-made AskUserQuestion scripts. This matches anchor 5's copy-paste-ready coverage of the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0 through 5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (build/test/lint checks, per-gate pass/warn/fail criteria, plan-integrity blocking failures) and feedback loops ("After fixing, re-run the relevant verification checks to confirm"), plus a task-status checklist in the report. The duplicate 0.3 numbering is a cosmetic defect, not a missing checkpoint, so this stays at anchor 5 rather than 4.

Progressive Disclosure

Both referenced bundle files (references/CONTEXT-GATES-AND-OWNERSHIP.md, references/GATE-RESULT-CONTRACT.md) exist and are clearly signaled in Step 0.1 with an explicit precedence rule ("If this contract conflicts with older examples in this file, follow the contract"), and Step 3.5 defers to the contract. It falls short of anchor 5 because the ~615-line body still inlines substantial material the references own (per-gate pass/warn/fail criteria repeated in 3.5, detailed plan-discovery and SHA256 hashing procedures) that could itself be split out one level deep.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "Checks that all tasks were implemented, nothing was forgotten, code compiles, tests pass, and quality standards are met" — giving comprehensive coverage of the verification workflow. Only "quality standards are met" is generic; per anti-drift review this sits at the anchor-5 example's level rather than anchor 4, since nearly every capability is named specifically.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the what ("Verify completed implementation against the plan. Checks that all tasks were implemented...") and the when with concrete trigger phrases ("Use after '/aif-implement' completes, or when user says 'verify', 'check work', 'did we miss anything'"). This matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

"verify", "check work", and "did we miss anything" are natural phrases a user would actually say, plus the workflow anchor "/aif-implement completes". It falls below anchor 5 because common variations like "review the work", "is it done", or "did we finish everything" are missing, but it is clearly above anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The plan-verification niche and the /aif-implement tie-in make it mostly distinct from unrelated skills, matching anchor 4's "minor overlap risk with closely related skills". It is not anchor 5 because broad triggers like "check work" and "did we miss anything" could plausibly fire for general code-review or QA skills in the same suite.