Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence ("Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete"), matching 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' — the 'Remember' section duplicates content from 'When to Stop and Ask for Help' and Steps 1-2. It is not 5 because that redundancy means not every token earns its place.

Actionability

Steps are sequenced with some concrete specifics (verbatim announce phrases, "Create TodoWrite", "Mark as in_progress"), but key details are missing — 'Review critically - identify any questions or concerns' gives no examples of what to look for and 'Run verifications as specified' defers entirely to the plan, matching 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete'. Not 4 because there are no commands, examples, or concrete criteria for the review and verification steps.

Workflow Clarity

The process has a clear 3-step sequence with explicit validation ("Run verifications as specified"), feedback loops for error recovery (stop-and-ask on blockers, "Return to Review (Step 1) when: Partner updates the plan"), and a Remember checklist — matching anchor 5. Not 4 because the error-recovery paths (stop conditions, revisit loop) are explicitly spelled out rather than left implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

A clear one-line overview, well-organized sections, and well-signaled one-level-deep delegation to sibling skills (rubypowers:using-git-worktrees, rubypowers:finishing-a-development-branch) with nothing inlined that belongs elsewhere — matching 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'. No bundle files exist to verify, and none are needed for a skill of this size.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints") but lists no concrete capability actions, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is not score 3 because that requires 1-2 concrete actions (e.g., 'loads a plan, executes tasks, verifies each step'), and not score 1 because it is not pure abstract language.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and specific ("Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session"), but the 'what' is entirely absent — the description never states what the skill does, matching 'only when is present without what' (anchor 2). It cannot be 3 because that anchor requires a clear 'what'.

Trigger Term Quality

"implementation plan" and "execute" are natural phrases a user would say, matching 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. It falls short of 4 because coverage is thin — a single phrase cluster with no synonyms like 'implement', 'follow', or 'work through' the plan.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Execute a written implementation plan in a separate session" is a distinct trigger with a clear niche, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' — the sibling plan skills (writing-plans, subagent-driven-development) create minor overlap. Not 5 because a user saying 'here's a plan' could plausibly be routed to plan-writing or subagent-driven alternatives.