Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: the role is stated in two short sentences ("COO처럼 본다. 멋진 전략을 실제 일정, 담당, 지표로 바꾼다."), inputs are a bare four-item list, and everything else is the output template itself. There is no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching anchor 5 exactly.

Actionability

The output format is copy-paste ready with exact table columns (분야/마일스톤 구간), OKR sections, and a risk register schema — concrete, actionable guidance for an instruction-only skill. It falls short of anchor 5 because the tables are empty skeletons: there is no worked example row and no quality criteria for filling in KRs or risks, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

As a simple single-purpose skill, the 역할 → 입력 → 출력 flow is clear and unambiguous, with inputs explicitly enumerated. It is not 5 because the process for producing the output (e.g., deriving quarterly KRs from the master timeline, or how many risks to log) is left implicit, and not 3 because nothing is missing or incoherent for the single action the skill performs.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is short, self-contained, and requires no external references — no bundle files exist — and the content is organized into clean, well-labeled sections (역할, 입력, 출력 형식). Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, this warrants anchor 5 with nothing that should be split out into separate files.

Specificity

The description lists three concrete deliverables — "3개월, 6개월, 12개월 실행 타임라인", "OKR", "리스크 레지스터" — using a third-person verb ("만든다"). It falls short of anchor 5 because coverage has gaps (quarterly OKR cadence, next-7-days action plan, and the input-driven nature of the skill are all absent), but it clearly exceeds anchor 3's 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (creates execution timelines, OKRs, and a risk register), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance in the description — the rubric explicitly caps completeness at 3 in that case. It is not 2 because the "what" is concrete rather than vague, and not 4 because no "when" is present even weakly in the description text.

Trigger Term Quality

"실행 타임라인", "OKR", and "리스크 레지스터" are natural phrases a user would say when needing this skill, matching anchor 4's good-but-not-complete coverage. It is not anchor 5 because common synonyms and variations (e.g., 로드맵, 마일스톤, 분기별 계획, 일정) do not appear in the description itself, and it is comfortably above anchor 3's partial keyword coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The COO execution-planning niche (timeline + OKR + risk register as one package) is mostly distinct with clear trigger terms. It is not 5 because the terms overlap somewhat with generic strategy/roadmap/goal-setting skills, but it is well above anchor 3's "could still overlap with similar skills" since the specific deliverable combination is distinctive.