Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but it carries real redundancy: the no-code rule appears nearly verbatim in 'Critical Requirements' ('NEVER write code, code snippets, or code examples') and 'Boundaries' ('❌ Write code, code snippets, or code examples in plans'), the assumptions guidance appears in both 'Critical Requirements' and 'Best Practices', and the ~30-line inlined plan structure duplicates the bundled references/plan-template.md. This is 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than the minor-trim profile of a 4.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable throughout: exact naming convention with a worked example ('plans/2025-11-24-add-auth-v1.md'), a copy-paste validation command ('./.forge/skills/create-plan/validate-plan.sh plans/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{task-name}-v{N}.md'), named research tools (search, sem_search, read, sage), and an explicit citation format with a real example ('crates/forge_repo/src/provider.rs:45'). For an instruction-only skill this fully covers the common cases, matching the anchor-5 standard.

Workflow Clarity

The four-step process is clearly sequenced (assess → create with naming convention → validate → structure reference) and includes a mandatory validation checkpoint with an explicit feedback loop: 'Fix any errors or warnings and re-validate until the plan passes all checks', reinforced by 'ALWAYS validate the plan' in Critical Requirements. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of explicit validation steps with error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is well-sectioned, but scored against the actual bundle: references/plan-template.md and references/example-plan.md exist yet are never mentioned or linked anywhere in SKILL.md, while a ~30-line plan-structure template (duplicating plan-template.md) is inlined in the body. That is 'content that should be separate is inline' plus unsignaled references — the anchor-3 profile; not 4 because the existing references are not clearly signaled at all, and not 2 because the body has clear section structure rather than being a monolithic wall.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Creates comprehensive strategic plans in Markdown format with objectives, step-by-step implementation tasks using checkbox format, verification criteria, risk assessments, and alternative approaches' plus 'All plans MUST be validated using the included validation script' — giving comprehensive, specific coverage of what the skill does. It is not score 4 territory because coverage extends across all documented plan components rather than having minor gaps; not below because every action is concrete, not generic.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' (generate Markdown plans with objectives, checkbox tasks, verification criteria, risks, alternatives) and the 'when' via a concrete 'Use when...' clause with three specific trigger conditions. It also adds a boundary statement ('Strictly planning-focused with no code modifications'), exceeding the anchor-5 example's completeness.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases users would actually say are covered with synonyms: 'Use when users need thorough analysis and structured planning before implementation, when breaking down complex features into actionable steps, or when they explicitly ask for a plan, roadmap, or strategy'. Matches the anchor-5 pattern of comprehensive natural terms including synonym variations (plan/roadmap/strategy); no meaningful natural phrasing is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — planning-only with an explicit boundary ('Strictly planning-focused with no code modifications') and distinct triggers (plan, roadmap, strategy, breaking down features) that would not fire for implementation or analysis skills. Conflict risk with other skills is minimal, matching the anchor-5 'clear niche with distinct triggers' example.