Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence — no concept explanations, no padding — and defers all detail to reference files. It falls short of anchor 5 because the "quick answer stays compact / need not load this specialist" message is repeated in three places (Role, stage 2, Output) and several doubly-qualified sentences could be trimmed without loss.

Actionability

Concrete elements exist — the four contract fields (Outcome, Scope and constraints, Verification, Completion condition), the depth-selection table, and the five-bullet checkpoint/handoff list — but most execution guidance is abstract direction ("Choose evidence that observes the claimed outcome", "Update the authoritative record") with the working specifics a reference-hop away. This matches anchor 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete, key details missing) rather than anchor 4's mostly-executable guidance.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced stages, each closed by an explicit "**Ready when:**" validation checkpoint, plus a genuine error-recovery feedback loop ("When a check fails, use its evidence to diagnose and correct the unit; when attempts repeat the same failure, revisit the premise"), pause conditions for missing authorization, and a resume/reconcile stage with a final output checklist. This matches anchor 5 (explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklists) and exceeds anchor 4, whose checkpoints are only "mostly present".

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: SKILL.md is a ~110-line overview and all four in-scope references (task-contracts, decomposition, verification, worked-examples) exist, are one level deep, and are each signalled inline with an explicit "read when" condition plus a purpose line in the References section. It misses anchor 5 because the References section duplicates the inline links and four of its eight entries point outside the bundle (../behavioural-specs, ../task-breakdown, ../writing-plans, ../using-beads) and do not resolve in this environment — half the reference list is unresolvable.

Specificity

The description names the coordination/planning domain and actions like "decomposing work, resuming a tracked effort, or revising a plan" and "Reuse the active environment's work record and authorization", but these are process abstractions rather than concrete capabilities with observable outputs. It goes beyond anchor 2 (domain plus generic action) yet falls short of anchor 4's "several specific actions".

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: what ("Coordinate substantial work with multiple outcomes, dependencies, handoffs, or durable checkpoints... Reuse the active environment's work record") and when ("Use when decomposing work, resuming a tracked effort, or revising a plan after evidence changes its premises"). It sits between anchors 4 and 5: the when clause has concrete trigger phrases, but the what relies on abstract terms like "substantial work" and "durable checkpoints" rather than concrete capabilities, so it does not clearly reach anchor 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases "decomposing work", "resuming a tracked effort", and "revising a plan" capture some relevant keywords, but "decomposing" is planning jargon and common natural phrasings like "break down", "project plan", "milestones", or "pick up where we left off" are absent. This matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than anchor 4's good coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-outcome/dependency/handoff framing carves out a niche, but "decomposing work" and "revising a plan" are shared territory with closely related planning and task-breakdown skills, and nothing here fences those boundaries. Anchor 3 (somewhat specific, could still overlap with similar skills) fits better than anchor 4's "minor overlap risk with closely related skills".