Conciseness

The body is dense, instruction-only prose with zero padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — every line directs behavior. The one trimsite is the 'Meaning is the contract' bullet in Boundaries, which restates the ownership rules that references/update-run.md (itself a required read) defines in full, putting it at 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the score-5 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete and executable for an interview-style skill: exact routing rules ('no file -> Phase 1... file exists -> Phase 2'), the literal announcement lines to use, the ordered nine-section question list, and hard numbers ('three to five lines', 'two-round cap', '3-5 lines' summary). Per the scoring note, absence of code is not penalized in an instruction-only skill when the guidance is actionable, and here it is, down to fallback behavior when the blocking-question tool is missing.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-phase process is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints and feedback loops: Phase 0 routes on file state and shows the repo model 'before the first question' with an invitation to correct it; Phase 1 ends by presenting the full draft and offering an edit round; pushback has an explicit loop bound ('a section the user could not sharpen in two rounds is written as given'); and a 'Done:' definition closes the run. Editing a shared doc is protected by ownership rules and never-touch conditions, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview plus routing, with all detail correctly pushed to four real, substantive reference files (grounding.md, interview.md, strategy-template.md, update-run.md) verified to exist. Each load is clearly signaled ('non-optional load', 'required read') with exactly when to read it, and cross-references stay one level deep. This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.

Specificity

The description names the artifact ('STRATEGY.md') and two concrete actions ('Create or update'), matching the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It does not list several specific actions (e.g. what the doc captures — positioning, metrics, tracks), so it falls below the score-4 anchor.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: 'what' ('Create or update STRATEGY.md') and 'when' with concrete trigger phrases ('Use when starting a product, adding a strategy doc, or changing direction or roadmap'). This matches the score-5 anchor, which requires explicit what and when with concrete triggers; it is not the score-4 case because the 'when' is already fully explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

'starting a product, adding a strategy doc, or changing direction or roadmap' are natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage. A few common synonyms are missing ('strategy document', 'product strategy', 'vision'), which keeps it below the comprehensive score-5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear: a specific repo-root artifact (STRATEGY.md) with distinct triggers (product start, direction/roadmap change). Minimal overlap with related planning skills, matching the score-5 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor rather than the score-4 'minor overlap risk' anchor.