The ~25-line body is lean and efficient with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows ("Use when the request lacks a material product or implementation choice", "One focused question at a time"), matching the score-3 anchor "Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place"; it is not the slightly-padded score 2 and far from the verbose score 1.

The numbered workflow gives concrete steps ("State the missing decision", "Offer concrete options", "Record the answer", "Produce a short brief/spec") but several are conditional/vague ("when possible", "only when enough answers exist") and there are no concrete examples of a good question or brief, matching score 2's "some concrete guidance but incomplete"; it lacks the copy-paste-ready specificity of score 3 and is well above the abstract score 1.

Steps are clearly sequenced with a failure-mode branch ("If the user declines to answer, proceed with explicit assumptions and label them"), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops; for this non-destructive interview skill that gap does not strictly cap the score, yet it keeps it at score 2 rather than the checkpointed score 3, and above the unsequenced score 1.

This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into clearly labeled sections (When to use, Non-goals, Workflow, Failure mode); per the simple-skills scoring note this warrants score 3, and it is not the under-organized score 2 nor the monolithic score 1.

Names the domain and several actions ("Ask one useful structured question", "remember answers and produce a brief/spec") but does not list a comprehensive set of concrete actions, matching the score-2 anchor "Names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive"; it falls short of score 3's "multiple specific concrete actions" and is well above the vague score-1 anchor.

It states both what (ask one question, record answers, produce a brief/spec) and when ("only when material product/implementation choices are genuinely missing", "Discoverable facts should be investigated"), with explicit trigger guidance; however the "what" is somewhat abstract rather than a crisp action list, so it sits at score 2 rather than the clearly-dual score 3, and is far above the missing-what-or-when score 1.

Relevant terms appear ("structured question", "product/implementation choices", "brief/spec", "investigated instead of asked") but common natural phrasings a user would actually say (e.g. "clarify requirements", "ask the user") are missing, matching score 2's "some relevant keywords but missing common variations"; not the full coverage of score 3 nor the jargon-only score 1.

The structured-interview niche is reasonably specific (one question at a time, only for missing material choices) but could still overlap with general planning or clarification skills, matching score 2's "somewhat specific but could still overlap"; it is not the clear-distinct-trigger score 3 nor the generic-conflicting score 1.