Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes git competence, spending tokens only on non-obvious operational facts ('Stash-then-pop is the only safe cross-worktree move', 'The stash list is shared by every worktree of the repo, so it may not be stash@{0}', "`wt switch` has no base option"). Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, so it fits the 'every token earns its place' anchor rather than the minor-trimmings anchor at 4.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: concrete commands (`git stash push -u -m "wip: <plan-slug>"`, `wt switch <branch>`, `git stash pop stash@{n}`, `just check` / `wt verify <branch>`) and a copy-paste-ready Phase 0 template with placeholder substitution and expected outputs. It covers the common cases (dirty tree, clean tree, untracked plan file, existing branch), matching the top anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor at 4.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (read plan → assess WIP state → insert Phase 0 → report) is explicit with an idempotency check, conditional branches, expected outputs, and a verify-baseline step; the risky stash-pop even has error recovery ('Only if the pop stops on a conflict: resolve it, then run `git stash drop stash@{n}`'). This matches the validation-with-feedback-loops anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor at 4.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a single-file skill (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) whose ~90 lines are all one coherent procedure, so nothing belongs in a separate file. Mechanics are cleanly delegated to the git-worktree skill with a clearly signaled 'REQUIRED SUB-SKILL' marker, and sections are well organized with no nested references — matching the well-organized single-purpose structure rather than the minor-organization-gaps anchor at 4.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'inserting a Phase 0 that creates a git branch and worktree, switches to it, and moves any WIP work from the current working copy into the new worktree' — covering the full operation with no gaps. It exceeds anchor 4 because the actions comprehensively describe the entire capability rather than leaving minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both what ('inserts a Phase 0 that creates a git branch and worktree, switches to it, and moves any WIP work') and when ('Use when asked to add worktree setup to a plan, when invoked as /plan:worktree, or when a plan should execute in an isolated checkout') are explicit with concrete trigger phrases. Anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less specific, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers cover natural phrasings and synonyms: 'add worktree setup to a plan', '/plan:worktree', and 'when a plan should execute in an isolated checkout'. Not anchor 4, since the main variations a user would actually say (worktree, isolated checkout, plan) are all present rather than 'a few missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (prepending a Phase 0 to a WIP plan) is clear and the triggers are plan-scoped, but the description's 'creates a git branch and worktree' phrasing overlaps with a closely related general worktree-creation skill, so a generic 'create a worktree' request could plausibly fire it. Not 5 due to this minor overlap risk with a sibling skill; not 3 because the plan-update scope and /plan:worktree trigger keep it mostly distinct.