Conciseness

The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and is information-dense, but the convergence/subtraction logic is restated across Phase 2, Phase 7, Quality Checks, and Guidelines, and sentences like Phase 2 step 3 (which packs twelve complexity dimensions into a single clause) could be substantially tightened. Not 4 because the redundancy and abstract padding exceed minor instances; not 2 because there is no beginner-level padding and every section carries substantive guidance.

Actionability

Concrete elements exist (numbered phases with core questions, L1/L2/L3 verification definitions, named patterns with application conditions, explicit stop conditions), but the guidance is largely abstract reasoning direction with no worked example, and "coding-principles Reference Representativeness" points to material absent from the bundle. Not 4 because a model cannot execute this framework without inventing the intermediate artifacts itself; not 2 because the phases, definitions, and checklists provide real, followable structure.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1-7 are explicitly sequenced, each with a core question, and validation checkpoints are present: evidence classification (observed/inferred/unknown), the subtraction check, the Phase 1 stop condition, and a final Quality Checks checklist that verifies each phase's output. Not 5 because the checkpoints are conceptual rather than explicit validate-fix-retry loops and Phase 2's internal logic is difficult to follow; not 3 because sequence and per-phase output verification are clearly defined.

Progressive Disclosure

The document has clear section headers, but everything is inlined in a single ~155-line file with no bundle files at all; the reference pattern catalogs and the verification/integration level definitions are natural candidates for separate reference files, and the one external pointer ("coding-principles Reference Representativeness") resolves to no file in the bundle. Not 4 because content that belongs in separate files is inlined and the single external reference is unusable; not 2 because the section structure provides genuine organization and navigability.

Specificity

"Implementation strategy selection framework" names the domain and "selecting development approach, or defining verification criteria" list 1-2 actions, but they remain abstract planning activities rather than the concrete, comprehensive action list of the higher anchors. Not 2 because it goes beyond bare domain-naming with multiple action phrases; not 4 because no specific concrete capabilities are enumerated.

Completeness

The description states what it is ("Implementation strategy selection framework") and explicitly when to use it via a "Use when planning implementation strategy, selecting development approach, or defining verification criteria" clause. Not 5 because the 'what' is an abstract 'framework' label without concrete capability statements; not 3 because the 'when' is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

"planning implementation strategy", "selecting development approach", and "defining verification criteria" are phrases a user would plausibly say when needing this skill. Not 5 because common natural variations (e.g., "how to implement this", "design approach", "rollout plan") and synonyms are missing; not 3 because the included terms are relevant and natural rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Triggers like "implementation strategy", "development approach", and "verification criteria" carve a distinct niche (strategy selection) that is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not 5 because broad 'planning' usage could overlap with general planning or architecture skills; not 3 because the trigger phrases are specific to this skill's domain rather than broadly overlapping.