Conciseness

The body never explains concepts Claude already knows, so there is no classic filler, but it could be tightened significantly: Phases 4 and 5 are near-duplicate skeletons, the 'Guidelines for Meta-cognitive Execution' section restates rules already given in the phases, and sentences like the ~90-word Phase 2 step 3 ('Compare viable choices by total complexity across the dimensions that materially differ: user decisions, settings, modes, concepts, outputs...') are baroque. This lands on 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than the 'noticeably verbose' anchor, since the density comes from phrasing, not unnecessary explanations.

Actionability

Concrete elements exist — the four numbered Phase 2 steps, named patterns with explicit application conditions, L1/L2/L3 verification definitions, and the subtraction-check procedure — but the guidance stays at the level of abstract decision policy with no worked example or concrete artifact showing the framework applied. As an instruction-only skill it matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' better than the 'mostly executable' anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The seven phases are clearly sequenced, Phase 1 has an explicit stop condition ('Stop when the current-state facts that could change responsibility, reuse, option validity... have been checked'), the subtraction check provides a re-test loop, and the Quality Checks section is an end-of-process checklist. It falls short of anchor 5 because validation is a post-hoc checklist rather than inline feedback loops with error-recovery steps at each phase.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized with clear headers, but at ~157 lines with no bundle files, content such as the reference pattern catalog (Strangler/Facade/Adapter/etc.) and the L1/L2/L3 and integration-point definitions are natural candidates for separate reference files. Additionally, line 27's 'find existing code as coding-principles Reference Representativeness describes' is a dangling reference to material not present in the bundle, matching 'references present but not clearly signaled.'

Specificity

"Implementation strategy selection framework" names the domain, but the only actions offered ("planning implementation strategy, selecting development approach, or defining verification criteria") are generic and largely restate the domain rather than enumerating concrete capabilities. It matches the anchor 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' better than anchor 3, since only 'defining verification criteria' is a distinct action and it remains abstract.

Completeness

Both what and when are present: "Implementation strategy selection framework" states what it is, and "Use when planning implementation strategy, selecting development approach, or defining verification criteria" is an explicit trigger clause with concrete phrases. It falls short of anchor 5 because the 'what' is vague — a 'framework' does not clearly state what the skill actually does.

Trigger Term Quality

The phrases "planning implementation strategy," "selecting development approach," and "verification criteria" are plausible things a user would say, but common variations and synonyms (e.g., "choosing an approach," "implementation plan," "how to structure the change") are missing. This sits squarely on the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor, not the good-coverage anchor above.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The implementation-strategy niche is somewhat specific, but triggers like "planning implementation strategy" overlap with general planning, architecture, and design-decision skills, and nothing distinctive separates it from those. It is more specific than the broadly-overlapping anchor 2 yet not 'mostly distinct' enough for anchor 4.