Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative, and free of explanations of concepts Claude already knows — every line carries a rule, command, or template. Not 5: there is real redundancy, e.g. the `--seal` guidance appears in Procedure step 3, the Validation checklist, and two rows of Common failures, and the unexplained `confidence(plan)` rule citations ("rule #9", "rule #11", "rule 4") add lookup overhead.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste bash for path resolution and sealing ("node .../run-checks.mjs \"${DIR}/checks.yaml\" --seal"), a complete plan.md template, a complete checks.yaml schema with every field, validation greps with expected outputs ("must print 6"), and an error-to-fix table. Not 4: commands are exact and the common cases (sealing, telemetry ACs, placeholder mistakes) are all covered with contrastive right/wrong examples.

Workflow Clarity

Prerequisites are listed, the Procedure is a clean Steps 1–4, and Step 4 routes through a Validation section with an explicit feedback loop ("fix every failure before returning"), executable checks, a checklist, and a Common failures recovery table. Not 4: checkpoints are explicit and recovery paths are tabulated, satisfying the anchor's checklist and feedback-loop requirements.

Progressive Disclosure

The overview is well structured with a Contents list and `references/brief-rationale.md` exists, is one level deep, and is clearly signaled ("**Why:** [`references/brief-rationale.md`](...)"). However, two of the three paths referenced in the body — `rules/snapshot-mode.md` and `rules/extended-sections.md` — are absent from the bundle, so navigation breaks exactly at the points the skill says "read when the arg is exactly `snapshot`". Not 4: two dangling reference links out of three is more than a minor organization gap.

Specificity

The description names the exact artifacts and their contents — "Writes the plan artifact in `.agent/{branch}/` — `plan.md` as a brief (task, guardrails, definition of done, turn cap, file changes) plus `checks.yaml`, its executable acceptance checks, sealed for `run-checks.mjs`" — matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage. Not 4: there are no coverage gaps; files, their sections, and the sealing operation are all enumerated.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the "what" is concrete (write plan.md as a brief plus checks.yaml, sealed for run-checks.mjs) and the "when" carries explicit trigger phrases ("Use after planning and on every plan iteration; triggers on create plan, write plan artifact, regenerate plan, iterate on plan"). Not 4: the "when" is explicit and specific rather than merely present with room to improve.

Trigger Term Quality

"triggers on create plan, write plan artifact, regenerate plan, iterate on plan" plus "Use after planning" gives good natural keyword coverage. Not 5: the terms are narrow and repetitive around the single word "plan" and miss common synonyms a user would naturally say ("update the plan", "revise plan", "new plan"). Not 3: the phrases given are natural user phrasings, not just technical jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The artifact names (`.agent/{branch}/`, `checks.yaml`, `run-checks.mjs`) carve out a distinct niche, but bare trigger phrases like "create plan" could also fire for ordinary planning requests, giving minor overlap risk with closely related planning skills. Not 5: the generic trigger "create plan" is not uniquely tied to this skill.