Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative policy — "Do not load the entire `.claude/rules/` tree", "Never quote a default from memory or docs" — with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; rationale lines are one-sentence and punchy ("A plan with placeholders is a promise to plan later"). Not 5 because approval-gating is repeated across several sections and a few aphoristic justifications could be trimmed; not 2-3 because there is no padded or tutorial-style content anywhere.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable throughout: named files to read ("`AGENTS.md` or `CLAUDE.md`", "`app.config.json`, `tauri.conf.json`, `package.json`, `.env`"), explicit thresholds ("more than 8 files", "3 or more genuinely different approaches", "2-3 sentences"), a forbidden-pattern list ("TBD, TODO, 'implement later'"), decision tables, and a fixed output template with named fields. Per the rubric's instruction-skill note, absence of code is not penalized; the specific guidance covers the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Section order follows a real sequence — preflight (durable context, prior decisions, official solutions), mode selection (Lightweight/Evaluation/Triage), propose, validate ("Validate Before Handing Off" checklist), simplicity gate, approval ("Get approval before proceeding"), handoff — with a feedback loop for recovery ("Ask what specifically failed, re-enter with narrowed constraints"). Not 5 because the flow branches across three modes whose selection priority must be inferred rather than given as one explicit decision sequence.

Progressive Disclosure

All three bundle files referenced in the body exist (references/durable-context.md, references/mode-evaluation.md, references/mode-triage.md), are clearly signaled with load conditions ("load `references/mode-evaluation.md`", "use its per-item table rather than Evaluation Mode's"), are one level deep with no nested references, and the mode-specific detail is appropriately split out of the main workflow. This matches the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references.

Specificity

"Turns rough ideas into approved, decision-complete plans before coding" names a concrete action, and "planning architecture, judging whether to build, or writing a handoff" plus "Not for bug fixes or small edits" enumerate several specific capabilities with explicit negative scope. Not 5 because the 'what' is one composite action rather than a list of multiple distinct concrete operations; not 3 because the enumerated use-cases and exclusion clause go beyond 1-2 generic actions.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the 'what' is "Turns rough ideas into approved, decision-complete plans before coding" and the 'when' is "Use when planning architecture, judging whether to build, or writing a handoff", with a third sentence bounding scope. This matches the anchor that clearly and explicitly answers both what and when with concrete trigger phrases; a 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

"planning architecture", "judging whether to build", and "writing a handoff" are natural phrases users would say, with "bug fixes" and "small edits" as recognizable anti-triggers. Not 5 because common variations like "design this", "how should I approach", or "what's the best approach" are absent from the description; not 3 because the terms present are relevant, natural, and well-covered rather than missing synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pre-code planning niche ("approved, decision-complete plans before coding") plus the explicit exclusion "Not for bug fixes or small edits" keeps it mostly distinct from debugging and editing skills. Not 5 because general design/architecture requests could still overlap with other planning-adjacent skills; not 3 because the negative scoping and value-judgment framing meaningfully reduce overlap.