Conciseness

The body is mostly tight, rule-based instruction, but several sections over-explain: the ~80 lines of interoperability prose ('They are complementary, not redundant. An agent can be perfectly on-scope while its context quality degrades. Conversely...'), the precedence/cadence discussion, and the redundant triple install commands pad the token budget. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than 4, where over-explanation would be only minor.

Actionability

Fully concrete instruction-only guidance: copy-paste-ready markdown block templates for all three artifacts (Intent Frame, Intent Check, Intent Resolution) with exact headers and fields, exact commands (`entire status 2>/dev/null`, `gh skill install pskoett/pskoett-skills`), explicit drift-detection triggers, and numbered multi-intent rules. This matches the top anchor — specific examples cover the common cases with nothing left as vague direction.

Workflow Clarity

The three phases are clearly sequenced (capture → 1a context → monitor → resolution) with explicit checkpoints: drift checks at named boundaries (before touching a new file, new logical work unit, tangential action) and a genuine feedback loop (check → ask if pivot is deliberate → update frame or return to original scope). The operations are not destructive/batch, so no validation cap applies; this fits the anchor with explicit validation steps and error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the skill is one ~254-line SKILL.md with clear, well-ordered sections (Purpose, Scope, Trigger, Workflow phases, Guardrails, Interop). Most content is appropriately placed for a process skill, but the Entire CLI integration and context-surfing relationship sections (~80 lines of detail not needed at activation time) are inline where a reference file would fit better — a minor organization gap matching the 4 anchor rather than the 5's clean overview-plus-references split.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("coding-agent work sessions") and two concrete actions — "explicit intent capture" and "drift monitoring" — matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions that are not comprehensive. It is not a 4 because the resolution/close-out phase and the concrete artifacts (frame, check, resolution blocks) are absent, leaving coverage gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Frames coding-agent work sessions with explicit intent capture and drift monitoring") and when ("Use when a session transitions from planning/Q&A to implementation for coding tasks, refactors, feature builds, bug fixes, or other multi-step execution where scope drift is a risk") with concrete trigger contexts. Both clauses are present, explicit, and concrete, matching the top anchor; a 4 would require the 'when' to be less specific, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing terms are well covered: "coding tasks", "refactors", "feature builds", "bug fixes", "multi-step execution" — phrases a user would plausibly say. It is not a 5 because common trigger synonyms such as "implement", "let's build", or "scope creep" are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — intent capture and drift monitoring at the planning-to-execution transition — is distinct with clear triggers, but it names a workflow stage that overlaps with general planning/execution skills (plan-interview, session-context) referenced in the body. It is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk against closely related skills, fitting the 4 anchor rather than the 5's minimal-conflict profile.