Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence (enumerated bullets, a literal template, no re-explanation of known concepts), with only minor trimmable editorial lines ("These are the things that often live only in senior-engineer memory", "The goal is not to create another planning stack"), fitting the efficient-with-minor-trims anchor rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete, specific guidance — a 4-step workflow, enumerated constraint categories, a literal output-format template, and a template file path — but lacks a worked example of a filled-in capability plan, which the anchor-5 "specific examples cover the common cases" bar requires.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (restate → resolve constraints → define contract → translate into execution) is clear and ends with an explicit handoff triage gate and a conflict-check rule, but intermediate validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying the restated capability against the source PRD) are implicit rather than explicit, matching anchor 4 rather than 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md is a well-sectioned overview with the detailed artifact correctly externalized to a one-level-deep, clearly signaled template path ("docs/examples/product-capability-template.md"); no bundle files exist, and minor organization gaps (the bare next-lane enumeration) keep it below the clean split-and-navigation of anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain and enumerates concrete deliverables ("implementation-ready capability plan that exposes constraints, invariants, interfaces, and unresolved decisions"), but the action list reduces to a single verb ("Translate"), leaving minor gaps in coverage versus the comprehensive multi-action anchor.

Completeness

Both what ("Translate PRD intent... into an implementation-ready capability plan...") and when ("Use when the user needs an ECC-native PRD-to-SRS lane instead of vague planning prose") are explicitly present; the when-clause is concrete enough to exceed anchor 3 but too jargon-heavy and circular to match the concrete-trigger-phrase bar of anchor 5.

Trigger Term Quality

"PRD intent", "roadmap asks", and "product discussions" are natural terms users would say, giving good keyword coverage, though common synonyms ("requirements doc", "spec", "feature request") are absent and the when-clause leans on internal jargon ("ECC-native PRD-to-SRS lane").

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The PRD-to-SRS capability-planning niche with its specific vocabulary is clearly distinguishable, with only minor overlap risk against generic planning or spec-writing skills, fitting the "mostly distinct" anchor rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.