Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — terse workflow steps ('Define field, decision horizon, available methods, resources, and constraints'), a compact tool-routing table, and no concept explanations. It is not a 5 because the '## Purpose' section repeats the frontmatter description verbatim, a small redundancy that could be trimmed; it is well above the midpoint because nothing is padded or over-explained.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and instruction-only appropriate ('Express each candidate as a falsifiable question with a measurable outcome', 'Score importance, novelty, tractability, risk, ethics, and learning value', 'Identify required sample size, data access, and ethical approvals'). It is not a 5 because key details are missing — no scoring scale or rubric for the scoring step, no worked example, and no output template; it is above a 3 because the steps and gates are specific enough to execute without invention.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced and the separate '## Completion gates' section supplies explicit checkpoints ('Verify novelty claims against current literature', 'State what result would change the research direction'). It is not a 5 because the gates are not tied into the step sequence and there are no feedback/recovery loops; it is above a 3 because validation checkpoints are explicitly present, not merely implied.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed; content is organized into clear, well-labeled sections (Purpose, Tool routing, Workflow, Completion gates, Boundaries, Delivery) with nothing that belongs in a separate file inlined. Per the rubric guideline for short skills with no need for external references, this scores 5 with just well-organized sections.

Specificity

The description lists two concrete actions ('Evaluate and prioritize research questions') and enumerates seven specific criteria ('importance, novelty, tractability, evidence, resources, ethics, and falsifiability'). It is not a 5 because only two verbs are given and the concrete output/deliverable is not described; it is above a 3 because the criteria enumeration goes well beyond naming a domain with 1-2 actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('Evaluate and prioritize research questions by importance, novelty, tractability...'), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance — the 'when' is not even weakly implied. Per the judging guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, which this description matches exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like 'research questions', 'evaluate', 'prioritize', 'novelty', 'tractability', and 'falsifiability' are natural terms users would say when needing this skill. It is not a 5 because common variations such as 'research problem', 'topic selection', or 'dissertation/thesis topic' are missing; it is above a 3 because coverage extends well beyond a single domain keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is fairly clear — evaluating and prioritizing research questions with criteria like falsifiability and tractability is distinct from document, code, or data skills. It is not a 5 because 'evaluate' and 'prioritize' are broad verbs and there is minor overlap risk with closely related skills like literature-review or research-planning skills (the body itself references a 'scholarly-research' skill).