Conciseness

Zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows: every section is skill-specific obligations, gate commands, and artifact layout. The 4-line philosophy paragraph ('The common failure of a coding agent is...') frames where the budget goes rather than teaching basics, so every token earns its place.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact commands with placeholders resolved ('Resolve <skill-dir> as the directory containing this SKILL.md and run python3 <skill-dir>/scripts/<name>.py', 'check_commit.py --message "<msg>"'), exact artifact formats ('Mutations:', '<capture>.running.png', '**Approved**: <date> - user: "<their words>"'), and a copy-paste-ready configuration block.

Workflow Clarity

The Phases table sequences Checks -> Build -> Verify with an explicit validation gate at each boundary ('A non-zero exit means stop and fix', 'validate_verification.py exits 0') and feedback loops ('check_proofs.py' before dispatching the Verifier and again after the fix; 'mutations.json - the Verifier's mutations, re-run after the fix'). The when-to-run scripts table doubles as a checklist.

Progressive Disclosure

The body stays at overview altitude (rules, tables, artifact tree) and points to one-level-deep references that all exist and carry the phase detail: [checks.md](references/checks.md), [build.md](references/build.md), [verify.md](references/verify.md), [verify-screens.md](references/verify-screens.md), and [memory.md](references/memory.md), each signaled in context (rules, phases table, configuration table).

Specificity

Names several distinct concrete actions covering the whole pipeline: 'freezing it into checks with proofs, building, and proving every check with a script and an independent Verifier before declaring done'. Falls short of anchor 5 because the actions are workflow-level rather than physically concrete, and the software-implementation domain is only implied ('plan.md', 'build') rather than stated.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Implements work already planned - a plan.md from tlc-plan, or a small ticket - by freezing it into checks with proofs, building, and proving every check...') and when ('Use when the user says "implement this plan"...'), and adds a negative boundary ('Do NOT use when nobody has decided what to build, or to plan a feature that needs one'). Textbook anchor 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Six quoted natural trigger phrases - 'implement this plan', 'build this ticket', 'implement this spec', 'write the checks', 'verify work', 'tlc-implement' - cover synonyms (plan/spec/ticket, implement/build) and the command name itself. This is more comprehensive than the anchor-4 example, matching the 'including synonyms' bar of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The closest sibling is explicitly disambiguated ('that is tlc-plan') and the niche is clear, but the generic triggers 'verify work' and 'write the checks' could plausibly fire for testing or review skills outside the tlc ecosystem. Anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills') is the best fit; not 5 because that residual overlap is real.