Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious, shep-specific guidance (parent/auto-rebase semantics, file-ownership partitioning rule, staged waves) and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but there is noticeable redundancy: '--parent is not a substitute for good partitioning' reappears as the 'Everything parented to everything' and 'Hand-rolled git worktree add' anti-patterns, and the two-phase separation is stated three times. It sits between the level-3 'could be tightened' and level-5 'every token earns its place' anchors — efficient with minor trims available, i.e. level 4.

Actionability

The bash examples are copy-paste ready apart from unavoidable placeholder ids: full 'shep feat new ... --repo ... --attach ... --push --pr' invocations for the foundation, dependent, independent, and capacity-staged cases, plus a complete monitoring command block ('shep feat ls / show / logs / approve / reject / resume') and a decision table mapping each dependency situation to a mechanism. The examples cover the common cases exactly as the level-5 anchor requires.

Workflow Clarity

The two phases are hard-separated with an explicit validation gate ('Do not create a single feature until Phase 1 is written down and the user has approved it'), Phase 1 is a numbered five-step sequence ending in 'Stop and get approval', and Phase 2 includes a feedback loop ('After each merge, re-check `shep feat ls`', plus reject/resume handling for failed features) and a decision table for choosing the dependency mechanism. This matches the level-5 anchor of a clear sequence with explicit validation steps and feedback loops; level 4 would have missing checkpoints, which is not the case here.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: the deep material (full partitioning rubric, full CLI flag reference, PM/work-item commands) is pushed to `references/partitioning.md` and `references/cli-reference.md`, both real bundle files, clearly signaled with when to read them ('Read it before composing commands'), and one level deep. However, the body instructs 'Use `templates/workstream-plan.md`' and no such file exists in the bundle — a broken reference — and the long '--parent' auto-rebase mechanics paragraph duplicates cli-reference material. Good structure with a concrete organization gap places it at level 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

The description names multiple concrete, specific actions with the exact commands involved: 'needs to be broken into parallel workstreams and executed with the shep CLI', 'Produces a workstream plan first, then drives `shep feat new` / `shep feat start` wave by wave'. These cover the skill's full capability surface comprehensively, matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions rather than the level-4 anchor's 'minor gaps in coverage'.

Completeness

It opens with an explicit 'Use when a large body of work (a version milestone, an epic, a roadmap, a set of PRDs/design docs) needs to be broken into parallel workstreams' trigger and states what it does ('Produces a workstream plan first, then drives `shep feat new` / `shep feat start` wave by wave'). Both what and when are explicit and concrete, exactly the level-5 anchor; level 4 would mean the 'when' was only adequate rather than fully specified.

Trigger Term Quality

It lists a broad set of natural phrases a user would actually say — 'break this down', 'split into workstreams', 'plan V6', 'what should we build first', 'run these in parallel', 'dependency graph', 'merge order', 'worktree split' — plus a catch-all ('any request to turn planning docs into running shep features'). This comprehensively covers natural terms and their variations, matching the level-5 anchor; level 4 would require noticeable missing natural terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear — shep-CLI workstream execution with distinctive triggers like 'worktree split' and 'merge order' — but several trigger phrases ('break this down', 'what should we build first', 'run these in parallel') are generic planning/prioritization language that a user could say without wanting the shep platform, creating minor overlap risk with general planning or task-breakdown skills. It is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk (level 4), not a fully clean niche (level 5).