Conciseness

Every section is skill-specific with no padding about concepts Claude already knows, but there is notable cross-section repetition: the two-stage review ordering is restated in the intro ("Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality)"), "When to Use", "The Process", "Advantages" ("Two-stage review: spec compliance, then code quality"), and "Red Flags" ("Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅ (wrong order)"), and the ~30-line Advantages section largely repeats earlier material. Fits anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but... could be tightened'); not 2 because nothing explains known concepts, not 4 because the repetition across 5+ sections goes beyond minor trimming.

Actionability

The body gives concrete orchestration guidance — four named statuses (DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS / NEEDS_CONTEXT / BLOCKED) with explicit handling rules, model-selection signals like "Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model", and escalation steps ("If the task is too large, break it into smaller pieces"). However the executable core — the subagent prompt texts — is deferred to ./implementer-prompt.md, ./spec-reviewer-prompt.md, and ./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md, none of which exist in the bundle, so the skill's central action (constructing the dispatch prompts) cannot be executed as written. Fits anchor 3 ('Some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details'); not 4 because the missing templates are a key detail, not 2 because the in-body guidance is specific and usable.

Workflow Clarity

The process is clearly sequenced with explicit validation gates ("Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" before any quality review), explicit feedback loops ("Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" → re-review, "Repeat until approved"), per-task completion tracking ("Mark task complete in TodoWrite"), and a final whole-implementation review. The Red Flags 'Never' list acts as a checklist. Fits anchor 5 ('Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists'); not 4 because checkpoints and error recovery are explicit and exhaustive.

Progressive Disclosure

The 'Prompt Templates' section clearly signals three one-level-deep references (./implementer-prompt.md, ./spec-reviewer-prompt.md, ./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md), but no such files exist in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories and no root-level template files), so every reference path is broken. The body is also a fairly monolithic 273 lines that a reader must traverse end-to-end. Fits anchor 3 ('Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled / navigable'); not 4 because absent referenced files are more than a minor organization gap, not 2 because the body's own section structure is clear and references are explicitly signaled.

Specificity

The description names its domain ("executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session") but states no concrete capability actions — subagent dispatch, per-task review, or any mechanism are absent. This matches anchor 2 ('Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'); it is not 3 because no distinct concrete actions are listed, and not 1 because the domain itself is specific rather than generic.

Completeness

The description is structurally a single "Use when..." trigger clause with no stated 'what' — the skill's actual mechanism (dispatching a fresh subagent per task with two-stage spec-then-quality review) never appears. This mirrors anchor 2's example "Use when working with documents" ('only when is present without what'); not 1 because the 'when' is clear and specific, not 3 because no capability statement exists even implicitly.

Trigger Term Quality

"executing implementation plans", "independent tasks", and "current session" are phrases a user might naturally say, but common variations are missing — notably "subagent", "run the plan", or "work through plan tasks". Fits anchor 3 ('Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'); not 4 because synonym coverage is thin, not 2 because several genuinely natural terms are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"independent tasks" and "in the current session" carve out a niche, but the skill's key differentiator — subagents — is missing from the description, so a user asking to "execute this plan" would match both this and a generic plan-execution skill (the body itself lists superpowers:executing-plans as an alternative). Fits anchor 3 ('Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'); not 4 because the closely-related alternative triggers on the same core phrase, not 2 because the qualifiers do narrow the trigger meaningfully.