Conciseness

One-line glosses of patterns Claude already knows ("Strangler Pattern: Gradual migration through phased replacement", "Facade Pattern: Complexity hiding through unified interface") pad the Reference Strategy Patterns section, and baroque nominalized prose ("Decision-Sufficient Current State Analysis", design-surface phrasing repeated across Phase 2, Phase 7, and Quality Checks) could be substantially tightened. This is anchor 2 (noticeably verbose, several unnecessary explanations) rather than 3 because the pattern catalog alone is roughly 20 lines of known-concept explanation.

Actionability

There is concrete guidance — an ordered phase sequence, an explicit comparison-dimension list ("user decisions, settings, modes, concepts, outputs..."), L1/L2/L3 verification definitions, and a Quality Checks checklist — but no worked example applying the framework, and directives like "Select the lowest-total-complexity choice that satisfies the condition" remain abstract without showing how. This matches anchor 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details) rather than 4.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1–7 are clearly sequenced with explicit stop conditions ("Stop when the current-state facts... have been checked"), internal checkpoints (Evidence Check, Subtraction Check), and an end-of-process checklist. It falls short of anchor 5 because error-recovery loops are only implicit — there is no guidance for what to do when a check fails mid-process.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a well-headered 157-line monolith with no bundle files at all; supporting material that naturally belongs in references/ (the pattern catalog, Verification Level and Integration Point definitions) is inlined. This is anchor 3 (some structure, content that should be separate is inline) rather than 4, since the over-50-line exception for single-file skills does not apply and several sections are detachable reference material.

Specificity

"Implementation strategy selection framework" names the domain but lists no concrete actions — nothing like "analyzes the existing codebase", "compares implementation strategies", or "documents the decision rationale". It matches anchor 2 (domain named, actions minimal/generic) rather than 3 because no specific action verbs appear at all.

Completeness

Both parts are present: a "what" ("Implementation strategy selection framework") and an explicit "Use when..." clause with three concrete trigger conditions. It falls short of anchor 5 because the "what" is abstract — it never says what the framework actually does (e.g., select between vertical/horizontal/hybrid approaches, assess risks, define verification levels).

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers like "planning implementation strategy", "selecting development approach", and "defining verification criteria" are phrases a technical user might say, but common variations and synonyms (e.g., "how to structure the change", "build vs. refactor", "rollout plan") are absent. This lands on anchor 3: some relevant keywords, missing natural variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The domain is fairly niche, but broad triggers like "planning implementation strategy" would plausibly fire for general planning, design, or ADR-writing skills. It sits at anchor 3 (somewhat specific but could overlap with similar skills) rather than 4, since the overlap risk is with a whole family of planning-related skills, not just one closely related skill.