Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative rule-writing that assumes Claude's competence — no concept explanations, exact thresholds ("More than 8 files", "3 or more genuinely different approaches"), and compact tables. Minor trimming opportunities exist: rhetorical flourishes ("A plan with placeholders is a promise to plan later", "discards the iterations someone else already paid for") and repeated approval-gate phrasing across Lightweight, Propose, Simplicity Gate, and Output sections.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: exact numeric thresholds, named forbidden placeholder strings ("TBD, TODO, 'implement later,' 'similar to step N'"), a concrete output template with named fields (Building / Not building / Approach / Key decisions / Unknowns), and literal user phrases that authorize implementation ("Implement the plan", "直接做", "按你说的来"). Specific examples cover the common cases; no pseudocode vagueness.

Workflow Clarity

The pipeline is coherent with explicit checkpoints and feedback loops — "Get approval before proceeding", "If an unknown blocks a decision, loop back before approval", "If an attack holds, deform the design to survive it", and the Validate Before Handing Off checklist. Not 5 because the placement is slightly ambiguous: "Get approval before proceeding" closes Propose Approaches, yet the later Simplicity Gate says to shrink the plan "before asking for approval", leaving the ordering of validation/gating versus the approval gate to be inferred.

Progressive Disclosure

Three bundle files exist (references/durable-context.md, mode-evaluation.md, mode-triage.md), each referenced exactly once in the body with a clear activation trigger ("For value, viability, commercialization, or keep/remove judgments..., load references/mode-evaluation.md"; "For a bundle of independently accepted or rejected asks..., load references/mode-triage.md"), and each is one level deep with no nested references. Mode-specific detail is appropriately split out while the core workflow stays in SKILL.md.

Specificity

The description names the domain and one concrete transformation — "Turns rough ideas into approved, decision-complete plans before coding" — but lists only this single action rather than several specific capabilities (e.g., evaluation verdicts, triage of request bundles, handoff generation). It matches anchor 3 ("names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive"): not 4 because several distinct actions are not enumerated, not 2 because the stated action is concrete and specific rather than generic.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — "Turns rough ideas into approved, decision-complete plans before coding" — and when — "Use when planning architecture, judging whether to build, or writing a handoff", with concrete trigger phrases and an explicit negative boundary ("Not for bug fixes or small edits"). Clearly matches the anchor-5 example structure of capability list plus concrete 'Use when' triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when planning architecture, judging whether to build, or writing a handoff" gives good natural-phrase coverage users would actually say. Not 5 because common synonyms are missing from the description itself ("design", "propose an approach", "should we keep this", "evaluate this" — several of these appear only in the separate when_to_use field); not 3 because the included triggers go well beyond domain-only naming.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear pre-code planning niche with an explicit exclusion ("Not for bug fixes or small edits") reduces conflict risk, and the voice is correctly third person ("Turns"). Not 5 because "judging whether to build" overlaps with value-judgment/evaluation skills and "planning architecture" could collide with general design or plan-type skills.