Conciseness

The body is mostly lean and assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations, terse step lists), but there is real duplication: "Review plan critically first", "Stop when blocked, don't guess", and "Don't force through blockers - stop and ask" restate guidance already fully covered in 'Step 1' and 'When to Stop and Ask for Help'. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not level 4 because the 'Remember' section is almost entirely redundant, not a minor trim.

Actionability

For an instruction-only process skill the guidance is concrete: exact announcement strings ("I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."), named sub-skills (superpowers:using-git-worktrees, finishing-a-development-branch), and a concrete per-task cycle (mark in_progress, follow steps, run verifications, mark completed). Minor gaps keep it below 5: it never says where the plan file lives, how to chunk TodoWrite items, or what to do when a verification fails once (vs. repeatedly).

Workflow Clarity

The three-phase sequence (Load and Review → Execute Tasks → Complete Development) is clear with most checkpoints present: critical review before starting, per-task verification, explicit stop conditions, and a 'when to revisit' loop. Below 5 because the error-recovery loop is only implicit — a single failed verification has no fix-and-retry guidance, only 'verification fails repeatedly' triggers stopping.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained (~65 lines) with well-organized sections and no content that belongs in separate files; its only external references are named workflow skills, clearly signaled one level deep in the Integration section with role labels. This matches 'well-organized sections' ideal for a reference-free skill, with no nested or buried references.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("written implementation plan") with 1-2 concrete actions ("to execute", "review checkpoints") but no broader action coverage, matching the domain-plus-1-2-actions anchor. It is above level 2 ('Processes PDF files' — domain with only a generic action) because 'execute...with review checkpoints' adds concrete substance, and below level 4 because it does not list several specific actions.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and strong ("Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session"), but the 'what' is only embedded in the when-clause rather than stated as a capability — no separate statement of what the skill does (e.g., 'Loads the plan, executes tasks, verifies completion'). This falls between anchor 2 (only 'when' present, e.g., 'Use when working with documents') and anchor 3; it edges toward 3 because 'to execute...with review checkpoints' does convey the core action, but cannot reach 4 where both what and when are explicitly and separately stated.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant natural keywords are present ("implementation plan", "execute", "review checkpoints") but common variations users would say are missing ("follow the plan", "carry out", "run the plan"), matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor. It is below level 4's 'good keyword coverage' because the trigger vocabulary is narrow, and above level 2 because the terms are domain-specific rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"written implementation plan", "in a separate session", and "review checkpoints" carve a mostly distinct niche with minor overlap risk against closely related skills (e.g., plan-writing or generic implementation skills). It is not level 5 because a user asking to 'implement this plan' without the separate-session/checkpoint framing could still match other skills, and clearly above level 3's 'could still overlap with similar skills'.