Conciseness

There is no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the class-to-skills mapping is rendered four times — the classification tree, the Pipeline Selection table, the Skill-by-class activation table, and the Depth Calibration table — which could be consolidated into one mapping. Mostly efficient but could be tightened.

Actionability

Concrete thresholds ('single-file, <10 logic lines', '2-5 files', '5+ discrete tasks'), exact artifact paths, env checks ('CI=true or GITHUB_ACTIONS=true'), budgets ('20% diff, 60s'), and explicit overrides ('depth=small', '--no-review') make the routing mostly executable. Minor gaps: 'emit routing decision', 'bounded work units', and the non-trivial diff threshold are left abstract or deferred to references.

Workflow Clarity

Sequences are explicitly ordered with validation checkpoints and feedback loops throughout: 'verify-gate (compile + test + lint; fix loop if red)', self-healing with 'up to 3 attempts per phase', 'verify-gate after each implementation unit' with independent audits, and human gates on the outer loop. This matches the anchor for explicit validation steps plus error-recovery feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

Three real, one-level-deep reference files are each clearly signaled at the point of need ('read references/classification-rules.md', 'read references/handoff-matrix.md', 'read references/pipeline-variants.md'). Minor organization gaps: the 9-item Key handoffs list duplicates references/handoff-matrix.md, and the Depth Calibration table could live in a reference.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'classifies incoming coding tasks and routes them through the correct combination of skills at the right depth', 'Handles standard, orchestrated-batch, CI, and outer-loop pipeline variants', 'Does not replace individual skills; dispatches to them' — with comprehensive coverage of both loops, all variants, and the dispatch boundary. It exceeds anchor 4 because coverage is comprehensive rather than leaving minor gaps.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly and thoroughly answered, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

The description is dominated by internal component names ('plan-interview, intent-framed-agent, session-context, context-surfing, verify-gate, self-healing') and loop jargon ('inner loop (detect, verify, recover)') that a user would not naturally say. Only 'coding tasks', 'pipeline', and 'CI' approach natural user phrasing, matching the anchor for one or two generic keywords with the natural phrases missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Does not replace individual skills; dispatches to them' draws a clear boundary, but the trigger domain ('incoming coding tasks') overlaps with virtually every coding skill, so it could still fire for the wrong skill. It is somewhat specific but overlap risk remains.