Conciseness

The ~445-line body is severely verbose and heavily padded: the SPARC phases are re-explained four separate times ('SPARC Phases in Goal Planning', the SPARC-GOAP YAML template, 'SPARC Mode-Specific Goal Planning', and the 'Goal Achievement Pattern' JS class), and it extensively explains concepts Claude already knows, e.g. sprint planning ('Map milestones to sprint goals, Estimate story points'), test pyramids, git feature-branch strategy, and textbook metrics (cyclomatic complexity, p99 latency, MTTR, change failure rate). This clearly matches anchor 1 ('Severely verbose; extensively explains concepts Claude already knows; heavily padded') rather than anchor 2, which calls for only several unnecessary explanations rather than systematic redundancy.

Actionability

There is real concrete guidance — copy-pasteable commands like 'npx claude-flow sparc run spec-pseudocode "OAuth2 authentication system"' and 'npx claude-flow sparc tdd "payment processing feature"' — so it is well above anchor 2's high-level hints. But a substantial portion is non-executable illustrative code: the 'mcp__claude-flow__swarm_init' blocks are comment-style pseudo-invocations, and the 'SPARCGoalPlanner' class calls undefined functions like executeSPARC() and this.aStarSearch(), matching anchor 3 ('Some concrete guidance but incomplete; pseudocode instead of executable code; missing key details') rather than anchor 4's 'mostly executable'.

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-phase sequence exists (Specification → Pseudocode → Architecture → Refinement → Completion) and one worked bash example ends with a validation step ('npx claude-flow sparc verify "authentication feature complete"'), which lifts it above anchor 2's poorly-defined steps. However, the document is a catalogue of planning patterns rather than one coherent operational workflow, and validation checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops are absent from the main workflows — nothing says what to do when a phase fails or when success criteria are not met — matching anchor 3 ('sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit') rather than anchor 4's 'most checkpoints present'.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories) and zero references to external files: everything — the full SPARC-GOAP YAML template, the performance/testing plan templates, the metrics tables, and the MCP integration examples — is inlined in a single monolithic SKILL.md. This matches anchor 2 ('content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined'), and it cannot reach anchor 3 because that anchor requires references to be present (even if poorly signaled); it stays above anchor 1 only because the section headers make the document navigable.

Specificity

The declared frontmatter description is only "Agent skill for code-goal-planner - invoke with $agent-code-goal-planner" — it names the skill and an invocation command but describes zero concrete actions or capabilities, matching the anchor 'Entirely vague; no concrete actions; pure abstract language'. It does not reach a 2 because that anchor requires naming a domain with at least minimal/generic actions, whereas here no action or domain description exists at all (a fuller description exists only in a second, embedded frontmatter block in the body, not in the operative frontmatter).

Completeness

Neither 'what' nor 'when' is present: the text says nothing about what the skill does beyond asserting it is an 'Agent skill', and 'invoke with $agent-code-goal-planner' is an instruction for how to call it, not guidance on when to use it. This matches anchor 1 ('Missing both what and when') and the guideline that a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3 — here even the 'what' is absent, so it cannot score higher.

Trigger Term Quality

There are no natural keywords a user would say when needing this skill; "code-goal-planner" is a product-specific proper noun and "$agent-code-goal-planner" is an invocation token (with a malformed "$" instead of a slash), which is technical jargon rather than natural user language. This matches anchor 1 ('No natural keywords; only technical jargon') and not anchor 2, which requires at least one or two generic-but-natural keywords like 'works with files'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description names one specific agent ("code-goal-planner"), which prevents it from being entirely generic like 'Helps with code and documents' (anchor 1), but with no capability or trigger information it cannot be functionally distinguished from any other planning skill, giving high overlap risk (anchor 2, 'Very broad; high overlap risk'). It does not merit a 3 because 'somewhat specific' requires some descriptive content about what the skill actually covers.