Conciseness

Lean, directive prose throughout with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — e.g. 'Do not mechanically inspect a repository README, entry point, and issue tracker when those sources cannot affect the answer' packs a precise rule into one sentence. Every section earns its place.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance for an instruction-only skill: a claim-to-strong-evidence table, numbered steps ('Identify what observation would support or falsify it', 'Record the source location and relevant version/date'), and a gated update procedure. Not 5 because the guidance is judgment-level with no executable examples or templates for common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Coherent top-level sequence (resolve contract → research → build claim evidence → challenge findings → produce answer → conditional skill update) with counter-hypothesis feedback loops ('Narrow or revise the conclusion when the counterexample survives') and mutation gating ('Do not mutate files unless the user requested a persistent update'). Validation checkpoints are prose-level rather than explicit executable checks, keeping it below 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with clear headers and no dead or nested references (no bundle files exist and none are referenced). At ~93 lines with self-contained content like the evidence-preference table and the full skill-update procedure, some material could be split into reference files, which keeps it just below 5.

Specificity

Names the domain ('technology, library, system, protocol, or tool') and several concrete actions ('answer a concrete technical question with source-traceable evidence', 'verified rather than recalled', 'incorporate verified findings into an existing skill'). Not 5 because the actions remain conceptual rather than enumerating the concrete deliverable variants.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Research a specific technology... to answer a concrete technical question with source-traceable evidence') and when ('Use when current implementation details, version behavior, configuration, compatibility, or authoritative technical facts must be verified rather than recalled'), plus a second explicit trigger for skill updates.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'implementation details', 'version behavior', 'configuration', 'compatibility', 'verified', 'library', 'tool'. Falls short of 5 because common user phrasings like 'check the documentation', 'up to date', or 'release notes' are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Has a clear niche — evidence-verified technical facts as opposed to training-data recall — but 'research a specific technology' is broad and could overlap with general research or web-search skills, so minor overlap risk remains.