Conciseness

Mostly dense operational guidance Claude does not already know (ledger formats, fix-round caps, BASE-not-HEAD~1 rules), but at ~570 lines it could be tightened: the rulings rule is restated in "Rulings, not stalls", Setup, the fix loop, and Finish; and the dot-graph edge list repeats every node label verbatim. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' — not 4 because the repetition and the duplicated graph text are more than minor trims.

Actionability

Concrete and executable throughout: exact commands ("scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N", "git rev-parse HEAD", "scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD"), verbatim ledger line formats, a four-status report taxonomy, and a worked example. It is not 5 because three of the referenced dispatch templates (implementer-prompt.md, task-reviewer-prompt.md, re-review-prompt.md) are absent from the bundle, leaving the actual prompt text unstated — a minor but real gap.

Workflow Clarity

The process is fully sequenced (Setup → per-task dispatch → report handling → review → fix loop → completion → final review → finish) with explicit validation gates and a textbook feedback loop: review findings → fix round → scoped re-review → breaker adjudication at the 5-round cap. Destructive actions (rm -rf workspace) are guarded by explicit preconditions, and the Common Rationalizations table plus mandatory ledger lines act as checklists. This matches the top anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The body has good section structure and correctly signals the three bundle scripts with their usage, but three of the six referenced paths (implementer-prompt.md, task-reviewer-prompt.md, re-review-prompt.md) do not exist in the bundle, and heavy content (Model Selection detail, waiting-on-subagents guidance, the 60-line example workflow) is inlined that belongs in reference files. This fits 'some structure but could be better organized... content that should be separate is inline' better than the 4 anchor.

Specificity

The only action named is "executing implementation plans" — a generic verb with no concrete capabilities (no mention of subagent dispatch, per-task review, fix loops, or final review). This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is not a 3 because no 1-2 concrete skill capabilities are listed, and not a 1 because the domain is clearly named.

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present ("Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session") with no 'what' — nothing states the skill dispatches subagents, reviews each task, or runs a final review. This exactly matches anchor 2 ('only when is present without what'); it is not 3 because that anchor requires a clear 'what' with a missing 'when' — the inverse of this description.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist — "executing implementation plans", "independent tasks", "current session" — and a user might naturally say "execute this plan". It stays at 3 rather than 4 because common variations and synonyms ("run the plan", "work through the tasks", "delegate tasks to subagents", "implementation plan") are missing; there is a single thin phrasing cluster.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The qualifiers "independent tasks" and "in the current session" do distinguish it from a parallel-session plan-execution sibling, but "executing implementation plans" is a broad phrase that could overlap with plan-creation, code-review, or general execution skills. 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' is the best fit; not 4 because the distinction from the closely related executing-plans skill rests on one subtle qualifier.