Conciseness

The body is mostly lean, but the 'Remember' section repeats earlier guidance nearly verbatim ('Review plan critically first', 'Follow plan steps exactly', 'Don't skip verifications', 'Stop when blocked, don't guess'), and the 'Note' paragraph about Superpowers and subagent platforms adds context that could be tightened. This fits anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but could be tightened') rather than anchor 4.

Actionability

The guidance is concrete and executable for a process skill: numbered steps, verbatim announcement strings, explicit stop conditions, and exact sub-skill invocations. It falls short of anchor 5 only because some steps delegate specifics to the plan ('Run verifications as specified') rather than fully specifying behavior.

Workflow Clarity

A clear three-step sequence is present with explicit checkpoints (critical review before starting, raising concerns, per-task verification) plus error-recovery guidance in 'When to Stop' and 'When to Revisit Earlier Steps'. This matches anchor 4; anchor 5 would require fully explicit validation and feedback loops rather than partially delegated ones.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill needs no bundle files; all inline content is appropriate to SKILL.md, sections are well-organized and easy to navigate, and the cross-skill references (superpowers:using-git-worktrees, superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch) are clearly signaled and one level deep. This matches the simple-skill exception and the anchor-5 pattern.

Specificity

The description names the domain and 1-2 concrete actions ('execute a written implementation plan... with review checkpoints'), matching the anchor-3 example, but it is written in second person ('Use when you have...'), which the guidelines penalize by reducing specificity by 1. It does not list several specific actions, so it cannot reach anchor 4.

Completeness

Both parts are present: what ('execute a written implementation plan... with review checkpoints') and an explicit 'Use when...' clause ('when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session'). This fits anchor 4; it falls short of anchor 5 because the trigger guidance lacks the breadth of concrete trigger phrases seen in the top examples.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'implementation plan', 'execute', 'separate session', and 'review checkpoints' are natural phrasings a user might say, but common variations and synonyms ('follow the plan', 'work through the tasks', 'implement this plan') are missing. Coverage is relevant but incomplete, fitting anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'written implementation plan to execute in a separate session' framing carves a distinct niche with unlikely confusion against unrelated skills, leaving only minor overlap risk with closely related plan-writing or general coding skills. This matches anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's fully distinct trigger set.