Conciseness

The body is mostly lean — a tight checklist of underspecification signals, compact question templates, and one example block — with only minor over-explanation, such as the detailed bolding and "Recommended"-tagging formatting instructions in step 2. It is not score 5 because a few of those formatting details could be trimmed, and not score 3 because there is no real padding of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and directly usable: numbered question templates, a copy-paste-ready example with a compact reply format ("Reply with: defaults (or 1a 2a)"), fast-path acceptance, and "Not sure - use default" options. It is not score 5 because a few directives remain soft (e.g., "if that reduces friction", "when helpful") without concrete criteria.

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow is clearly sequenced with real checkpoints: pause before acting, state assumptions and ask for confirmation before proceeding, and restate requirements before starting work. It is not score 5 because there is no guidance for the error-recovery case where answers conflict or the request remains underspecified after the first pass; it is clearly above anchor 3 since the checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with well-organized sections (Goal, Workflow, Question templates, Anti-patterns) and no external references, which is appropriate since no content warrants a separate file. It is not score 5 because the body slightly exceeds the ~50-line simple-skill threshold and the question-templates section could be tightened, leaving minor organization gaps per anchor 4.

Specificity

"Clarify requirements before implementing" names one concrete action but stops there, matching the anchor for domain plus 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It is not score 4 because it does not list several specific actions (e.g., asking clarifying questions, pausing implementation), and not score 2 because the action stated is concrete rather than purely generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is present but vague ("Clarify requirements before implementing"), and the 'when' exists only as a negative invocation rule ("Do not use automatically, only when invoked explicitly") with no positive 'Use when...' clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not score 2 because both a what and a weak when are stated, and not score 4 because the when is exclusionary rather than a concrete positive trigger.

Trigger Term Quality

The only keyword is the generic phrase "Clarify requirements"; natural phrases a user would say ("underspecified", "ambiguous request", "requirements are unclear") and their synonyms are entirely missing. It is not score 1 because the phrase is user-recognizable rather than pure technical jargon, but it falls short of score 3's 'some relevant keywords' since there is effectively one generic term.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Clarify requirements" is somewhat specific to the requirements-clarification niche but could still overlap with planning, discovery, or scoping skills. The explicit-invocation-only clause reduces auto-trigger conflict, keeping it above anchor 2, but the broad core phrase prevents the 'mostly distinct' fit of anchor 4.