Conciseness

The body is all actionable guidance with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but it is noticeably repetitive: the PRD template appears twice (Step 0 seed template and "PRD Target Structure (final)"), the Approach A/B/C pros/cons format appears in both Step 4 and Step 7, and the same rules are stated three times (Core Principles, Steps 3–6, and Anti-Patterns). It is not 2 because the padding is rule repetition rather than fluff or filler explanation, and not 4 because deduplicating would cut roughly a quarter of the file.

Actionability

Provides executable commands ("python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create 'brainstorm: <short goal>' --slug <auto>", "--parent", "add-subtask") plus complete copy-paste markdown templates for the PRD, research notes, expansion message, preference questions, and final confirmation. It is not 5 because commands as written are not fully copy-paste runnable ("--slug <auto>" is an unresolved placeholder), and not 3 because the templates are complete rather than pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–8 are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: question Gates A–C before asking anything, PRD updates after each answer, and a final confirmation gate ("Does this look correct? If yes, I'll proceed with implementation"). It is not 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery branch (e.g. what to do when the user rejects the final confirmation or research dead-ends), and not 3 because checkpoints are explicit and abundant rather than implicit. This is a conversational skill, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the ~490-line SKILL.md inlines large template blocks (PRD seed template, research output format, message templates) that belong in a references/ file. Section structure is clean with per-step headers, so it is not 2, but it is not 4 because most of the template content is inlined rather than split out, and the under-50-line exception clearly does not apply at this length.

Specificity

"Creates task directories, seeds PRDs, runs codebase research, proposes concrete implementation approaches with trade-offs, and converges on MVP scope through structured Q&A" lists five concrete actions spanning the full workflow (capture → research → propose → converge), matching the anchor-5 'multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' example. It is not 4 because there are no minor gaps — every phase of the skill's operation is named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Creates task directories, seeds PRDs, runs codebase research, proposes... approaches with trade-offs, and converges on MVP scope") and when ("Use when requirements are unclear, multiple implementation paths exist, trade-offs need evaluation, or a complex feature needs scoping before development"), with concrete trigger phrases — an exact match to the anchor-5 example. Not 4, since the 'when' clause is already fully explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when requirements are unclear, multiple implementation paths exist, trade-offs need evaluation, or a complex feature needs scoping before development" contains several phrases users naturally say. It is not 3 (terms are natural and multiple, not generic) and not 5 because common synonyms are missing — e.g. "brainstorm", "explore options", "gather requirements".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Collaborative requirements discovery session... before development" carves a clear niche with mostly distinct triggers. It is not 5 because "trade-offs need evaluation" and "multiple implementation paths exist" could also trigger architecture/decision-making skills; it is not 3 because the pre-implementation scoping niche is far more specific than the anchor-3 'somewhat specific' example.