Conciseness

The body is dense and procedural with no concept explanations Claude already knows, but has minor trimmable overhead: reference pointers appear both inline in the workflow and again in the References section, and abstract phrases like "identify the persistence gap" cost interpretation. This matches anchor 4 (efficient with minor instances that could be tightened), not anchor 5 (every token earns its place) nor anchor 3 (noticeably padded).

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: a four-field contract ("Outcome", "Scope and constraints", "Verification", "Completion condition"), a depth-selection table, and a five-part handoff checklist. Not anchor 5 because some steps stay high-level ("produce that stage's artifact and apply its checks") and concrete examples/templates are delegated to reference files rather than present inline.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced five-step workflow where every step ends in an explicit validation gate ("**Ready when:** ..."), with feedback loops for error recovery ("When a check fails, use its evidence to diagnose and correct the unit; when attempts repeat the same failure, revisit the premise") and pause/escalation rules ("Pause the affected work when progress requires a new decision, capability, or authorization"). This matches anchor 5; anchor 4 would lack some of these explicit checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview with one-level-deep references, each well-signaled at the decision point where it is needed ("Read [task contracts] ... when creating a structured or design-intensive plan") plus a consolidated References section with per-file read-when guidance; all four cited references/ files exist in the bundle. Matches anchor 5; anchor 4 would have buried or weakly signaled references. The four ../ sibling-skill links are peer navigation outside this bundle rather than nested content.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "decomposing work, resuming a tracked effort, or revising a plan after evidence changes its premises" and "Reuse the active environment's work record and authorization" — with only minor gaps (e.g., no mention of recording/handoff output). It sits above anchor 3 (only 1-2 actions) and below anchor 5 (comprehensive, fully enumerated capability coverage).

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — "Coordinate substantial work with multiple outcomes, dependencies, handoffs, or durable checkpoints" — and when — "Use when decomposing work, resuming a tracked effort, or revising a plan after evidence changes its premises". The when-clause carries three concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 pattern; anchor 4 would require the when to be only loosely stated.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "dependencies", "handoffs", "durable checkpoints", "resuming", "revising a plan", "decomposing work" — matching anchor 4. Not anchor 5 because common variations users would actually say (e.g., "break down this project", "milestones", "track progress") are missing; not anchor 3 because coverage goes beyond a couple of generic terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Use when decomposing work" and "Coordinate substantial work" overlap heavily with closely related planning skills (the body itself links sibling skills like task-breakdown and writing-plans), so it could still trigger for the wrong one — anchor 3. Not anchor 2 because the scope is constrained to multi-outcome/dependency/handoff coordination with resumption and revised-premise triggers, not broadly generic.