Conciseness

Most of the body is non-obvious, project-specific process rules (Trellis gates, artifact schemas, task.py contract), but the 35-line "Thinking Framework: First Principles Analysis" section teaches generic methodology Claude already knows ("Network latency ≥ 0, disk I/O has limits"), and the implementation-approval rule is restated in at least five places (Planning Contract, Planning Flow steps 8–9, Question Rules, Quality Bar, closing line). Fits anchor 3: mostly efficient but includes unnecessary explanation and could be tightened; not 2 because the majority of the content earns its tokens, not 4 because the First Principles section and repetition are clearly trimmable.

Actionability

The skill provides a copy-paste-ready command ("TASK_DIR=$(python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create \"<short task title>\" --description \"<one-line summary>\" --slug <slug>)") plus concrete, checkable guidance throughout: the 6-item Question Rules format, the Requirement Convergence Gate checklist, per-artifact content lists, and the Quality Bar checklist. Per the scoring notes, instruction-only skills are judged on concrete specific guidance, which this fully delivers; minor gap-free coverage of the common cases supports 5 over 4.

Workflow Clarity

The 9-step numbered Planning Flow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: the requirement convergence gate, the PRD convergence pass ("read prd.md top to bottom and verify that no fact is repeated"), and the approval gate. Feedback loops are explicit — "After each user answer, update prd.md, recompute the decision inventory, and repeat from step 2" and "If the artifacts change materially after approval, repeat the final review". This matches anchor 5; anchor 4 is ruled out because checkpoints are named gates with checklists, not merely present.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a monolithic 200-line file with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories and no external file references at all. Section headers provide decent navigation, but generic content that clearly belongs in a separate reference (the First Principles framework) and substantial artifact/procedure detail are fully inlined. Fits anchor 3 (some structure, content that should be separate is inline) rather than 2 because headers and gates organize the body well, and not 4–5 because nothing is split out despite the length.

Specificity

The description lists five concrete, distinct actions: "Creates task directory, seeds PRD, asks high-value questions one at a time, researches technical choices, and converges on MVP scope" — comprehensive coverage of the skill's workflow. Anchor 4 is ruled out because there are no minor gaps; the action list spans the full discovery-to-convergence process.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit and concrete: the "what" is the action list (create task directory, seed PRD, ask questions, research, converge on MVP scope) and the "when" is "Use when requirements are unclear, there are multiple valid approaches, or the user describes a new feature or complex task". This matches the anchor-5 example pattern exactly; anchor 4 is ruled out because the 'when' clause is explicit rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

"requirements are unclear", "multiple valid approaches", "user describes a new feature or complex task" are natural phrases, but common variations like "brainstorm", "plan/plan a feature", or "spec" are absent. Fits anchor 4 (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5, which requires comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Guides collaborative requirements discovery before implementation" with PRD/task-directory artifacts carves out a distinct planning niche, but the trigger "user describes a new feature or complex task" is broad and could overlap with general planning or scaffolding skills. Minor overlap risk with closely related skills fits anchor 4, not 5.