Conciseness

Mostly efficient and skill-specific, but roughly 20 lines could be tightened: four of the five Core Principles bullets are restated nearly verbatim as anti-patterns ('Gates before advancing' vs 'NEVER advance to Wave N+1', 'Every wave boundary must be a safe deploy point' vs 'NEVER create an unsafe intermediate deploy state' — the latter even repeating the same three failure modes and the full 'must land together' rule a second time). Not 4: the duplication is systematic rather than minor; not 2: nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, and the bulk of the body earns its tokens.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance for an instruction skill: exact output path ('.context/plans/<plan-slug>.md'), a precise wave-assignment rule ('Wave N = tasks whose all dependencies are in waves 1..N-1'), a concrete safe-boundary test question, real verification commands ('bun run test --coverage', 'bun run typecheck', 'git log --oneline main..HEAD'), a worked recognition example with expected output, and a copy-paste template reference. Not 4: no meaningful gaps remain — the scoring note confirms code absence is not penalized when guidance is this actionable.

Workflow Clarity

Both modes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation: Mode A ends with a validate step ('every task appears in exactly one wave; no wave contains tasks that depend on each other'), Mode B runs the wave's Verification checklist before marking done, and feedback loops exist (Blocked status transition, 'name the failing check, hold Wave 2 as pending, and tell the user what must pass first'). Matches the anchor-5 pattern of validate-fix-retry with checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview body with well-signaled one-level-deep references: all four cited files (wave-format.md, dependency-analysis.md, status-tracking.md, wave-document.yaml) exist in references/ and match their stated purposes, each is linked inline with a purpose description at the point of need, and a References section recaps all four with one-line descriptions. No inlined content belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'Builds a task dependency DAG, assigns wave numbers via topological sort, emits a living wave document that tracks status as work lands, and updates wave progress when tasks complete' — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's behaviors in third-person voice. Not 4: coverage is comprehensive rather than having minor gaps; not below since no action is vague.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Groups plan phases and tasks into dependency-ordered waves for parallel subagent execution via git worktrees...') and when with concrete trigger phrases ('Use when asked to: group tasks into waves, plan parallel execution, ...'). This matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly; not 4 because the 'when' clause is fully explicit with multiple concrete triggers, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage in 'group tasks into waves, plan parallel execution, schedule worktrees, create a wave breakdown, wave planning, dependency grouping, update wave statuses, parallel subagents, which tasks can run in parallel'. Not 5: a few natural phrasings are missing ('parallelize tasks', 'run tasks concurrently', 'wave plan') and some entries are keyword fragments ('parallel subagents', 'dependency grouping') rather than phrases a user would naturally say. Not 3: coverage clearly exceeds 'some relevant keywords with missing common variations'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (wave planning for parallel subagent execution via worktrees) with distinctive triggers like 'create a wave breakdown', 'update wave statuses'. Not 5: 'plan parallel execution' and 'schedule worktrees' carry minor overlap risk with closely related general planning or git-worktree skills. Not 3: the wave-specific vocabulary makes confusion with generic planning skills unlikely.