Conciseness

Every sentence carries non-obvious instructions (e.g., "Every item has `value` and `source`; allowed sources are `user`, `default`, and `research`") with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The ~25-line body earns anchor 5 ("Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place"); nothing qualifies as the trimmable over-explanation of anchor 4.

Actionability

The guidance is fully parameterized and executable for an instruction-only skill: exact paths, the `requirements` map shape, `user.ask` with `purpose="prd_item_confirmation""`, `factId` "equal to the requirement id", and the concrete readiness criterion "the PRD is ready when `open_questions` is empty and the artifact contract is valid". This matches anchor 5's copy-paste-ready guidance; the only deferred detail (full file schemas) is deliberately and correctly placed in the bundled reference.

Workflow Clarity

The seven-step Core Workflow has a clear sequence, an explicit validation checkpoint ("Resolve every PRD and artifact-contract diagnostic. The PRD is ready when `open_questions` is empty and the artifact contract is valid"), and a feedback loop ("write the answers back, and repeat until no PRD questions remain"). This matches anchor 5 ("Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery"); no destructive or batch operation lacks validation.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview that defers file shapes to a single clearly signaled one-level reference: "`references/product-files.md` - required fields, allowed values, examples, and handoff rules for PRD status and artifact contracts" — and that file exists in the bundle with exactly that content and no further nested references. This matches anchor 5 ("Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation").

Specificity

The description names a concrete domain via exact file paths ("product/README.md, product/requirements.json, or product/contract.json in project-replicator") and two actions ("writing or revising"), but the verbs themselves are generic and it never states what the skill does with these files. This matches anchor 3 ("Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive") — not 4 because it does not list several specific actions, and not 2 because the domain is pinned by exact file paths rather than generic labels.

Completeness

Only the "when" is present ("Use when writing or revising product/README.md, product/requirements.json, or product/contract.json in project-replicator") with no "what" — the description never says the skill defines requirement structures, drafts and confirms items, or validates the artifact contract. This matches anchor 2 ("only 'when' is present without 'what'") — not 3 because that anchor requires a clear "what", and not 1 because the "when" clause is explicit and concrete rather than extremely vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "writing or revising", "product/requirements.json", "product/contract.json", and "project-replicator" are exactly what a user of this project would say when needing the skill. It misses the common synonyms "PRD" or "product requirements document", which the body itself uses, so it fits anchor 4 ("Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing") rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is scoped by exact file paths and the project name ("in project-replicator"), giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal risk of firing for unrelated skills. It matches anchor 5 ("Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk").