Conciseness

The intent contract template appears three times in near-full form — the structure section (lines 26-79), the Step 2 heredoc (lines 241-275), and the full worked example (lines 387-435) — plus padded sections like 'Benefits' ('Clear expectations set upfront', 'Closed-loop accountability') and the closing 'Ready to use!' line. This is noticeably verbose with several redundant/padded sections, though the allocation framework itself is dense novel guidance.

Actionability

Concrete, mostly executable guidance throughout: exact bash for resolving the plan directory and writing session-intent.md, a complete AskUserQuestion payload, exact status-transition mappings, and a validation report template. Minor gaps: shell placeholders like ${USER_GOAL}/${MIN_SUCCESS_CRITERIA} are undefined, and the referenced scripts (plan-storage.sh, routing.sh) are not part of the bundle.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints, a checklist, and a validation-report loop with gap remediation ('If any criteria not met, list concrete next steps'), plus a feedback loop for intermediate risk (record 'pending-user-decision', stop, ask, rewrite the allocation, then continue). Not score 4 territory: every phase has an explicit checkpoint and error-recovery path.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good (## headers, tables, numbered steps), but the entire skill is a monolithic ~450-line file with no bundle files — the example contract, workflow-integration details, and allocation tables could live in separate reference files. Worse, the body references 'scripts/plan-storage.sh' and 'scripts/lib/routing.sh' which do not exist in the bundle, so those references are broken. Not 4: references present but unverifiable and content that should be separate is inline.

Specificity

The description names a domain ('complex or ambiguous task that risks scope drift') but describes zero concrete actions — it never says what the skill does (create an intent contract, capture success criteria and boundaries, validate outputs). This matches 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; not 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions to be stated.

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present ('Use when starting a complex or ambiguous task that risks scope drift') with no 'what' whatsoever — the reader cannot tell the skill creates and validates intent contracts. This matches the anchor 'only when is present without what'; not 3, because a clear 'what' is entirely absent rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

'complex or ambiguous task' and 'scope drift' are natural, relevant phrases, but common variations users would actually say are missing: 'scope creep', 'requirements drift', 'define success criteria', 'intent contract', 'plan goals'. Fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'; not 4 because several obvious user phrasings are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Scope drift' is a reasonably distinctive trigger, but 'complex or ambiguous task' is broad and would overlap with planning, scoping, and requirements-gathering skills. Fits 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'; not 4 because the generic first half invites conflicts.