Conciseness

The body is dominated by lean imperatives ("Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete"; "Follow each step exactly"; "Don't skip verifications") with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It is not 5 because the Superpowers/subagent note is padded (and contains a typo, "such as Codex or Codex") and the "Remember" section restates rules already given ("Review plan critically first", "Follow plan steps exactly", "Don't skip verifications").

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: "Create TodoWrite and proceed", "Mark as in_progress", "Run verifications as specified", exact announce scripts, and a required handoff ("REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use branch-finish"). It is not 5 because "Review critically - identify any questions or concerns" gives no criteria for what to look for, and the referenced peer skills (branch-finish, git-worktree) have no paths or lookup instructions.

Workflow Clarity

A clear three-step sequence is present with explicit checkpoints: per-task verification ("Run verifications as specified"), hard stop conditions ("STOP executing immediately when:... Verification fails repeatedly"), and explicit revisit rules ("Return to Review (Step 1) when: Partner updates the plan"). It is not 5 because validation specifics are deferred to the plan ("as specified") and error recovery is escalation ("Ask for clarification rather than guessing") rather than an explicit verify-fix-retry loop.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a short (~45 non-blank line), self-contained, single-purpose skill with no bundle files and no content that belongs in separate files; sections are well-organized (Overview, The Process, When to Stop, When to Revisit, Remember, Integration). Per the rubric's simple-skill exception, well-organized sections alone warrant a 5, and the peer-skill references in the Integration section are clearly signaled and one level deep.

Specificity

The description names a specific domain ("written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints") but the only action stated is the generic "execute"; none of the skill's concrete capabilities (load plan, review critically, verify tasks, report) appear. It matches anchor 2 — domain named, actions minimal or generic — rather than 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

The description is entirely a trigger clause — "Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session" — with no statement of what the skill actually does (the body's process of loading, reviewing, executing with verification, and reporting is absent). This matches anchor 2's "only 'when' is present without 'what'" branch, not anchor 3, which requires a clear 'what'.

Trigger Term Quality

"implementation plan", "execute", and "review checkpoints" are relevant terms a user handing over a plan would plausibly say, but common natural variations ("follow the plan", "carry out", "work through", "implement") are absent. This fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than 4 (only a few natural terms missing).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger "written implementation plan... in a separate session with review checkpoints" carves a mostly distinct niche with specific qualifying conditions. It is not 5 because "plan" is a common term with minor overlap risk against closely related skills (writing-plans, subagent-driven development, both referenced in the body); not 3 because the trigger conditions are specific enough to largely avoid misfires.