Conciseness

The body is dense, operational, and assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations, no library tutorials), but there is noticeable duplication between the Workflow steps and the Anti-Patterns section: 'copy the focus verbatim' (step 2c vs. first anti-pattern), tier-to-model resolution (step 2b.5 vs. second anti-pattern), and gate checking (step 2a vs. third anti-pattern) are each stated twice with elaboration. This fits the 4 anchor ('efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed'); it is not 3 because nearly every token is operational rather than explanatory.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable for an agent-orchestration skill: exact Agent call fields (subagent_type, model, isolation, description, prompt), the exact gate message to deliver to the user with the checklist-copy instruction, concrete extraction rules for table vs. inline formats, and a runnable build-check command. Score 4 would require missing details; the only project-dependent choice (build command) is deliberately and appropriately parameterized.

Workflow Clarity

The 2a–2g loop is a clearly sequenced process with explicit validation checkpoints: gate verification against ticked checklists, a hard stop at the merge gate with the checklist reproduced verbatim, a build/test check after merge, and a feedback loop (stop and report unmet gates rather than proceed). This is a batch operation and validation is explicitly present, so no cap applies; it matches the 5 anchor (explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklists).

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an operational overview that delegates detail to three real, one-level-deep bundle files, each clearly signaled in the References section with its purpose (template to fill, tier guide to append from, model map to resolve tiers). All referenced paths exist in references/, and cross-skill pointers to the planner's format/status specs are labeled rather than dangling. This matches the 5 anchor (clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation).

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions covering the full workflow: "spawning parallel agents per wave, enforcing merge gates, and building self-contained per-agent prompts from wave document rows". These are specific capabilities, not domain labels, and no major aspect of the skill's behavior is missing. Anti-drift check: score 4 requires 'minor gaps in coverage'; none are evident, so the 5 anchor (multiple specific actions, comprehensive) is the better fit.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: 'what' is the opening sentence (execute wave plan, spawn agents, enforce gates, build prompts) and 'when' is an explicit "Use when asked to:" clause with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the 5 anchor exactly; score 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases are natural user utterances with synonym variation: "run the plan, execute the plan, start the waves, launch agents, execute wave N, run wave execution". This covers run/execute/start/launch variants across plan, waves, and agents. Anti-drift check: score 4 is 'a few natural terms missing'; the run/execute/start/launch synonym family is well represented, so 5 fits better.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The wave/wave-document/wave-execution-planner vocabulary carves a clear niche, but some triggers ("run the plan", "launch agents") are generic phrases that other plan-execution or agent-orchestration skills could also claim, creating minor overlap risk. Anti-drift check: the 5 anchor demands 'minimal conflict risk' with distinct triggers; the generic 'launch agents' trigger keeps this at 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk').