Conciseness

The body is two sentences plus a generation comment ("Load and follow the shared skill at ~/.agents/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md") — nothing is over-explained and every token earns its place. It cannot exceed 5, and score 4 ('minor instances of over-explanation') does not apply since there is no padding at all.

Actionability

The single directive is concrete in form (exact path, unambiguous 'Load and follow' instruction), but all substantive guidance for the skill's actual purpose is delegated to a file that is not part of the bundle and does not resolve in this environment — the key details are missing. This fits anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details') better than 4, whose gaps are only minor.

Workflow Clarity

What is written is one unambiguous step (load the shared skill), but the skill's stated purpose — planning a multi-step task — has no visible sequence, steps, or validation checkpoints in this file; the entire workflow lives behind an unresolvable external pointer. Score 5 under the simple-skill exception does not apply because this is a front for a multi-step process, and anchor 2's 'rough sequence' is also not present — the written directive is clear while the real workflow has implicit, externalized checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-signaled, exactly-one-level-deep reference ('Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md`') with nothing buried or nested. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no overview content at all and the reference points to an absolute path outside the skill bundle rather than co-located files; it is above anchor 3 because the reference is clearly signaled and nothing is inlined that belongs elsewhere.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code") but lists no concrete capability or action — nothing like 'writes implementation plans' or what the skill actually does. It sits above score 1 ('entirely vague; pure abstract language') because the trigger context is concrete, but below score 3, which requires 1-2 named actions.

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present ("Use when you have a spec or requirements..."); the 'what' is entirely missing — the description never states what the skill does. This exactly matches anchor 2 ('only when is present without what'). It is not a 3 because a clear 'what' is absent rather than merely weakly implied, and not a 1 because the 'when' half is explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

"spec", "requirements", "multi-step task", and "before touching code" are natural phrases users would say. However coverage is narrow — common variations like 'implementation plan', 'write a plan', 'break this down', or 'task breakdown' are absent, matching anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') rather than 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code" carves out a recognizable niche but still overlaps with general planning, decomposition, and project-management skills. It matches anchor 3 ('somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'); it lacks the distinct multi-action trigger set of anchor 5.