Conciseness

The body is mostly prescriptive rather than educational, but includes unnecessary material that could be tightened: the narrative Philosophy section ('Every skill in this collection is built around a core philosophy...') is collection meta-commentary, the 'fresh-eyes' mandate, structural-friction guidance, and 'do NOT remove agreed features' each recur in 2-3 places (Phase 2, Phase 3 loop, Constraints, Fast Mode, Resume), and the full mock-dialogue example adds length. It is above a 2 because nearly all content is actionable instruction rather than concept explanation, but below a 4 because the repetition and narrative sections go beyond 'minor instances' of over-explanation.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully concrete: exact output path ('docs/plans/plan-NNN-<slug>.md where NNN is sequential'), a copy-paste-ready required-elements plan template including the Knowledge Map table, quantitative constraints ('2-3 questions per batch'), a planning-depth calibration table, an edge-case action table, install commands, and a worked OAuth example covering the common case. Host-tool flexibility ('ask_user, AskUserQuestion, or an equivalent') is explicitly justified, and the couple of inherently judgment-based steps ('improve architecture... where it clearly helps users') are constrained by enumerated stop conditions.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-phase process is explicitly sequenced (Interview → Exploration → Knowledge Audit → Plan Generation → Post-Approval) with validation checkpoints throughout: a mandatory fresh-eyes re-read before each refinement pass, enumerated loop stop conditions, a knowledge-audit gate that blocks 'nowhere reachable' steps, an edge-case handling table, user approval before implementation, and progress-vs-plan comparison at natural breakpoints. Feedback loops (draft → refine → re-check, blocked-step → surface to user) are explicit, matching the 5 anchor including checklists for the complex process.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: clearly labeled sections, and the single bundle reference is well signaled one level deep ('Reusable prompt templates... live in references/iterative-plan-refinement-prompts.md') and the file exists with content matching that description. It is not a 5 because the ~320-line body is more than an overview — sizable blocks like the full plan template, the mock-dialogue example, and the pipeline interoperability section could be split into reference files to keep SKILL.md lean, which is exactly the 'minor organization gaps' of the 4 anchor.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'runs an upfront interview to gather requirements across technical constraints, scope boundaries, risk tolerance, and success criteria' — naming the four requirement domains explicitly. It falls short of a 5 because the action set centers on one process (interview + gather requirements) rather than multiple distinct concrete capabilities, but exceeds a 3 because it enumerates several specific sub-actions rather than only 1-2.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: what ('Ensures alignment... through a structured interview process... runs an upfront interview to gather requirements across [four named domains]') and when ('Use this skill when the user invokes /plan-interview before implementing a new feature, refactoring, or any non-trivial implementation task'), with concrete trigger phrases plus an explicit do-not-use clause. This matches the 5 anchor directly; the 'when' is not merely present but concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms are well covered: 'invokes /plan-interview', 'implementing a new feature', 'refactoring', 'non-trivial implementation task', plus negative triggers ('pure research/exploration tasks, simple bug fixes'). It is not a 5 because common phrasings users would naturally say — 'design a feature', 'spec out', 'plan a feature' — are only partially represented by 'feature/spec planning'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill is pinned to a distinct niche — a structured pre-planning interview — and explicitly disclaims overlap ('Do NOT use this skill... when the user just wants standard planning without the interview process'), which sharply reduces conflict with generic planning skills. It is not a 5 because 'feature/spec planning' is a crowded category and the interview framing is the only real differentiator, leaving minor overlap risk with closely related planning skills.