Conciseness

The body is a dense operational procedure with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but it carries several inline rationale paragraphs (e.g. "That branch is the one place in this skill where an `ISSUES FOUND` is presented without asking the developer anything, so here is why..." and "because the prose handover still loses something") that duplicate the purpose of the existing references/design-decisions.md and could be moved there. Mostly efficient with some explanation that could be tightened matches this anchor better than the minor-trimming of a 4 or the padded sections of a 2.

Actionability

The guidance is fully executable: exact bash commands ("BASELINE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)", "CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff $BASELINE_SHA..HEAD --name-only)"), complete copy-paste Dispatch blocks with fully specified prompts, exact display strings, exact user questions ("Fix these issues, skip them, or stop implementation?"), enumerated exit-state handling, and a fallback for hosts without named agents. Placeholders like "{content of step N from the plan}" are inherent to orchestration and clearly marked, so there are no real gaps that would drop it to 4.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-phase sequence (validate/resolve → per-step implement/harden loop → fact check → relay/re-check → standards → final review → summary) is explicitly numbered with cross-referenced sections, tracked state variables ($PLAN_PATH, $BASELINE_SHA, $UNVERIFIED_FACTS, $RELAY_FACTS), validation checkpoints after every pass, feedback loops (ISSUES FOUND → fresh implementer → re-harden; corrections → relay implementer → targeted re-check), and explicit terminal branches. The summary checklist even mandates reporting unrun passes and a dirty working tree, which exceeds the anchor's requirements rather than showing minor gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

The bundle is real and well used: references/workflow.md (99 lines) and references/design-decisions.md (149 lines) are both actual files, referenced one level deep in a dedicated "## References" section with a one-line description of each, and the body itself is organized into clear sections (Host notes, Objective, Context, numbered phases). The gap keeping it from 5 is that the design rationale inlined in the body belongs in the already-present design-decisions.md, so content placement is not fully appropriate.

Specificity

"Execute a reviewed implementation plan step by step with verification and standards review" names three domain-specific actions (step-by-step execution, verification, standards review), matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It is not comprehensive: the body's core passes (per-step hardening, fact check against live sources, final review, summary) are absent from the description.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (execute a reviewed plan step by step with verification and standards review), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. The "when" is only weakly implied by "reviewed implementation plan", so it cannot score 4.

Trigger Term Quality

"implementation plan", "execute", and "standards review" are relevant keywords a user might use, but common natural variations are missing ("run the plan", "build the plan", "follow the plan", "carry out the plan"). Some relevant keywords with missing variations matches the anchor, and it lacks the good coverage needed for a 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Execute a reviewed implementation plan step by step" carves a mostly distinct niche (implementing an already-reviewed plan file) with only minor overlap risk against closely related skills (plan-writing, code-review, or generic implementation skills). The generic tail "with verification and standards review" broadens it slightly, keeping it below a 5 with truly distinct triggers.