Conciseness

Every section earns its place: seven checks in 1-3 sentences each, numeric confidence thresholds, and a tight exclusion list, with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Even the one flourish ("plans that only work on demo day") compresses a real heuristic into a memorable line rather than padding.

Actionability

The guidance is concrete and directly executable for an instruction-only skill: each named check carries specific questions ("Does it assume greenfield when reality is brownfield?"), shadow-path tracing enumerates exactly four paths (happy/nil/empty/error), and calibration gives numeric cutoffs (0.80+, 0.60-0.79, below 0.50). It stops short of fully-executable-level guidance in one respect: no worked example or format for what a "finding" should look like.

Workflow Clarity

The review flow is coherent — applicability gate ("Apply each check only when relevant"), per-check procedures, confidence calibration as an explicit checkpoint, and a suppression rule below 0.50 — and the destructive/batch cap does not apply. It sits below the score-5 anchor because the end-to-end sequence is implicit rather than ordered: the "read the codebase alongside the plan" step is only attached to one check, and the expected output of a finding is never specified.

Progressive Disclosure

At ~35 lines with a single purpose and no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist, and the body references none), this hits the rubric's simple-skill exception: well-organized sections ("What you check", "Confidence calibration", "What you don't flag") fully and appropriately contain the content.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("proposed technical approaches in planning documents") and lists four concrete check areas: "architecture conflicts, dependency gaps, migration risks, and implementability". It falls just short of the score-5 anchor's comprehensive multi-action coverage (e.g., no mention of the codebase-cross-referencing or confidence calibration the body actually performs).

Completeness

The "what" is clear and specific (evaluates whether technical approaches survive reality, with four named risk categories), and the "when" is present via "Spawned by the document-review skill" — an equivalent explicit trigger statement for a subagent skill. The when could be more explicit (no 'Use when...' phrasing describing the triggering conditions), matching the score-4 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "planning documents", "migration risks", and "architecture conflicts" are natural to the domain, but common variations users actually say are missing — notably the word "feasibility" itself (the skill's own name never appears in the description), plus synonyms like "design docs", "specs", "RFCs", or "will this plan work". This matches the anchor for relevant keywords missing common variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is distinct — feasibility evaluation of planning documents with named risk categories — and the explicit parent-skill scoping reduces mis-triggering. Minor overlap risk remains with generic document-review or code-review skills, which keeps it below the clear-niche score-5 anchor.