Conciseness

The body is dense and prescriptive with no padding about concepts Claude already knows, but a few passages could be trimmed: the motivational rationale in File Structure ("You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused") and the somewhat convoluted rubypowers/superpowers save-folder paragraph. That matches "efficient; minor instances of over-explanation" rather than the every-token-earns-its-place level of 5.

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete and copy-paste ready: an exact plan-header template, a complete task template showing real test code, exact commands with expected output ("Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v` / Expected: FAIL with 'function not defined'"), exact commit commands, and an explicit forbidden-pattern list ("TBD", "Similar to Task N"). For an instruction-only skill this covers the common cases completely, matching the top anchor rather than 4.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (scope check → file structure → task granularity → write plan → self-review → save → execution handoff) with explicit validation: the Self-Review section is a three-point checklist with a fix-inline feedback loop, and every task template embeds verify-it-fails/verify-it-passes checkpoints. This matches "clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists" rather than the minor-gaps level of 4.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and there are no buried or nested references, and the body contains no dead-end pointer chains. However, the skill is roughly 150 lines with everything inline — including a 40-line task-structure example — which exceeds the under-50-lines exception for a reference-free 5, so it fits "good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps".

Specificity

The description names the domain ("a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code") but states no concrete actions or capabilities at all — what the skill actually does is never mentioned. It is not pure abstract fluff like "Helps with documents", so it fits the "names the domain but actions are minimal or generic" anchor rather than the one below.

Completeness

The description has a clear, explicit "when" ("Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code") but no "what" — the capability (writing implementation plans) appears only in the skill name, not the description. This matches the "only 'when' is present without 'what'" anchor exactly; the score-3 anchor ("clear 'what', missing 'when'") is the opposite pattern.

Trigger Term Quality

"spec", "requirements", and "multi-step task" are phrases users would naturally say, but the skill's core noun — "plan", "planning", "implementation plan" — is entirely absent, along with common variants like "break this down". That is more than "a few natural terms missing", so it sits at the "some relevant keywords but missing common variations" anchor rather than 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"have a spec" combined with "before touching code" carves a clear pre-implementation niche that would not draw execution or review skills. Overlap risk is minor and confined to closely related skills (e.g., brainstorming/spec creation), fitting "mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills" rather than the broader overlap at 3.