Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — tables, checklists, exact paths, and commands with zero padding or explanation of known concepts. It falls short of anchor 5 because security/input-validation guidance repeats across four sections ('Identify security impact', 'Layer Impact Checklist', 'Common Planning Mistakes', 'Definition of Done') and the layer list appears twice, which could be consolidated.

Actionability

Fully executable instruction-only guidance: exact commands ('make update-codegen && make update-crds', 'make test-update-snaps'), exact file paths ('version1/config.go', 'pkg/apis/configuration/validation/'), and exact verification checks ('git diff -- "**/__snapshots__/**" is non-empty'). Anchor 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases' is met across the Definition of Done table, checklist, and ordering rules.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequences with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the 10-step ordering for multi-layer changes, a Definition of Done gate ('Do not report a task as complete until every applicable box is ticked') with a per-condition verification column, and an explicit silent-failure recovery rule ('if make test-update-snaps changes nothing after a template edit, you have not tested the feature'). This matches anchor 5 including its feedback-loop requirement.

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned file with clear headers and one clearly-signaled one-level external reference ('Review the Key Invariants section in AGENTS.md'). At ~105 lines it exceeds the simple-skill threshold, and the Definition of Done / Common Mistakes tables are borderline candidates for a separate reference file — good structure with minor organization gaps, matching anchor 4.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Task planning and approach strategy for NIC') but offers only 1-2 concrete actions — 'planning' and 'create a plan'. It matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' rather than score 4, which requires several listed specific actions.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the 'what' ('Task planning and approach strategy for NIC') and a clear 'Use when...' clause with multiple concrete triggers. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because the 'what' is a single generic capability statement rather than a concrete action list.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would actually say are present — 'starting any non-trivial task', 'reading issues or specs', 'planning before implementing', 'create a plan for a change'. Coverage is good but falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym/extension coverage (e.g., no 'design', 'break down', 'estimate', or task-size scoping terms).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'for NIC' scopes it to the project, but 'task planning' and 'create a plan for a change' are broadly generic and would overlap with any general planning or design skill. This matches anchor 3 ('somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills') rather than 4, since the triggers themselves carry little unique signal.