Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative, and free of concept explanations Claude already knows, but the restricted `{plan-name}-task-*.md` pattern is restated three times and the Review Resolution / Specialist Result Acceptance gating language repeats across sections. This matches 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the fully lean anchor 5.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact subagent_type values (e.g. "dev-workflows-fullstack:task-decomposer"), a literal Agent prompt string, named result fields (diffBase, mutationEvidence, qualityIssues), a decision table, and a completion-report contract. Not score 5 because several key behaviors ('Apply Specialist Result Acceptance', 'Review Resolution') resolve only to external skills whose content is not shown here.

Workflow Clarity

The mandatory 4-step cycle (execute → branch on executor result → quality-fix → commit) is explicitly sequenced with validation gates ('Commit only after quality-fixer returns pass or verification_incomplete'), feedback loops ('Return to step 1', recompute and rerun), a pre-execution checklist, and defined handling for escalation and deletion failures. This matches the anchor with explicit validation steps, error-recovery loops, and checklists for a complex batch process.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist in this skill; the body is organized into eight clear sections and defers detail one level deep to named companion skills, with its single file reference (references/review-resolution.md) clearly attributed to the subagents-orchestration-guide skill. Good structure with minor gaps — the skill exceeds 50 lines and some dense cross-referencing prose (e.g. the Execution Protocol block) could live in a reference file — so it fits anchor 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

"Execute materialized task files in autonomous execution mode" names one concrete action on a specific domain, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' anchor. It omits the broader actions the skill actually performs (task materialization, quality-fix cycles, commits, review, cleanup), so it is not score 4.

Completeness

The 'what' is stated (execute materialized task files autonomously) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not score 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

"Execute" and "task files" are relevant keywords, but "materialized task files" and "autonomous execution mode" are internal jargon rather than phrases a user would naturally say, and common variations ("run tasks", "work plan") are absent. This sits above the 'one or two generic keywords' anchor but lacks the synonym coverage of score 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Materialized task files" and "autonomous execution mode" carve a fairly distinct niche among development-workflow skills with only minor overlap risk against sibling execution skills. Not score 5 because no distinct trigger phrases are given to fully separate it from related orchestration skills.