Conciseness

Mostly efficient but padded in places — the Philosophy section and Knowledge Audit rationale explain concepts at length, and refinement guidance is repeated between the body and the references file.

Actionability

Provides concrete guidance — a file naming convention (docs/plans/plan-NNN-<slug>.md), a required-elements markdown template, named question domains, and a worked example — with only minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Four phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: mandatory fresh-eyes refinement, stop-iterating criteria, a Knowledge Audit stop-and-surface rule, and user approval before implementation.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and the reusable prompt templates are split into a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (references/iterative-plan-refinement-prompts.md), though substantial detail remains inlined.

Specificity

Names concrete actions — 'runs an upfront interview to gather requirements across technical constraints, scope boundaries, risk tolerance, and success criteria' — with only minor abstraction in the opening 'Ensures alignment' phrasing.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (structured interview that gathers requirements across four named domains) and when (use before implementing/refactoring non-trivial tasks), plus a concrete do-NOT-use clause.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger phrases users would say ('implementing a new feature', 'refactoring', 'non-trivial implementation task') plus the /plan-interview invocation, though a few common synonyms are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The interview-before-exploration framing and explicit exclusion list make it mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against generic planning skills.