Conciseness

The body is lean, imperative, and teaches nothing Claude already knows — it spends its tokens on project-specific conventions (specs/ layout, Linear MCP tools) rather than general concepts. Minor repetition of spec-currency guidance across section 5 and Best Practices, plus a few bullets that could be merged, keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: exact paths ("specs/<linear-ticket-number>/PRODUCT.md"), named Linear MCP tools ("list_teams", "list_issue_labels", "save_issue"), "ask_user_question" for ambiguity, and explicit delegation to the write-product-spec / write-tech-spec / implement-specs skills. It is not anchor 5 because some steps (e.g., what to do when issue creation or verification fails) leave execution details to inference.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps (decide → product spec → tech spec → implement → keep current → verify) with explicit decision criteria at step 1 and a verification checkpoint at step 6 that maps back to the specs. It stops short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit feedback loop for failed verification (no 'if verification fails, fix and re-verify' instruction), and anchor 3 would ignore that both decision and verification checkpoints are present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-sectioned overview with clear headers, no inlined bulk reference material, and a Related Skills section pointing to the three sibling skills it orchestrates. No bundle files exist, and none are needed for an orchestrator of this size. It is not anchor 5 because the related-skill pointers are bare names without signaling when to reach for each, a minor organization gap.

Specificity

"writing PRODUCT.md before implementation, writing TECH.md when warranted, and keeping both specs updated as implementation evolves" lists several concrete third-person actions tied to named artifacts. It falls short of anchor 5 because coverage of the workflow (verification, review) is only implied, and above anchor 3 because multiple specific actions are named rather than 1-2.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers what ("Drive a spec-first workflow for substantial features by writing PRODUCT.md before implementation...") and when ("Use when starting a significant feature, planning agent-driven implementation, or when the user wants product and tech specs checked into source control"), matching the anchor-5 exemplar structure with concrete trigger phrases. Neither the what nor the when is missing or vague, so 4 would undersell it.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "starting a significant feature", "planning agent-driven implementation", and "product and tech specs checked into source control" are phrases a user would plausibly say. A few synonyms (e.g., "specification", "PRD") are missing, matching anchor 4's 'a few natural terms missing' rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Distinctive terms ("spec-first", "PRODUCT.md", "TECH.md", "spec-driven") carve a clear niche with minimal generic overlap. There is minor overlap risk with the closely related spec-writing skills it orchestrates (write-product-spec, write-tech-spec), which fits anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.