Conciseness

The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows about its own tooling and is dense with project-specific rules, but the approval gate, evidence rule, and PRD-convergence requirements are each restated across three to four sections (e.g., approval appears in the Planning Contract, Planning Flow steps 8-9, Question Rules, and Quality Bar). The ~40-line generic First Principles framework ("Network latency ≥ 0", "Data must be consistent") also teaches methodology Claude already knows. It is not 2 because most tokens convey non-obvious project rules; it is not 4 because the repetition and generic framework are clearly trimmable.

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: an executable `task.py create` command with flag semantics and failure behavior ("create rejects blanks"), an enumerated question structure (decision needed, why it matters, recommended answer, trade-off), explicit artifact contents, and a final-summary element list. It is not 5 because the complex-vs-lightweight task boundary that gates design.md/implement.md is never crisply defined, and there is no worked example of a good question or final planning summary.

Workflow Clarity

The 9-step Planning Flow has an explicit sequence with validation checkpoints (requirement convergence gate, PRD convergence pass, Quality Bar checklist) and feedback loops ("After each user answer, update prd.md, recompute the decision inventory, and repeat from step 2"; "If the artifacts change materially after approval, repeat the final review"). Stop conditions are explicit ("Do not run task.py start or edit product code in the same turn"). It is not 4 because every phase transition has an explicit gate and no validation checkpoint is missing.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with clear, navigable headers and all content is procedural to this skill's execution; no bundle files exist and none are strictly required. It is not 5 because the ~40-line generic First Principles framework is not specific to this workflow and is a natural candidate for a separate reference file, making the single file longer than an overview needs to be; it is not 3 because there is no bulk reference material inlined and the structure is consistent.

Specificity

The description lists five concrete actions — "Creates task directory, seeds PRD, asks high-value questions one at a time, researches technical choices, and converges on MVP scope" — giving comprehensive coverage of the requirements-discovery workflow. It is not 4 because the action list covers the full discovery-to-scope pipeline rather than leaving gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both "what" (the concrete action list) and "when" ("Use when requirements are unclear, there are multiple valid approaches, or the user describes a new feature or complex task") with concrete trigger phrases. It is not 4 because the when-clause is explicit and specific, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

"requirements are unclear", "multiple valid approaches", "new feature", and "complex task" are natural phrases users would say, giving good keyword coverage. It is not 5 because common synonyms such as "planning", "brainstorm", "spec", or "requirements gathering" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The task-directory/PRD/MVP-scope framing carves a distinct niche with triggers like "requirements are unclear" and "multiple valid approaches". It is not 5 because it could still overlap with generic planning, spec-writing, or architecture skills; it is not 3 because the PRD/task-directory artifacts anchor it to a specific workflow.