The body is well-sectioned and not a wall of text, but it re-explains concepts Claude already knows (e.g. "two pointers (sorted arrays, palindromes)", sliding window, BFS/DFS, DP table mechanics, CAP theorem in "System Design Trade-offs"). Not score 1 because it is not egregiously verbose; not score 3 because the conceptual refreshers and parenthetical examples pad tokens Claude does not need.

Some guidance is concrete ("Prepare 6-8 behavioral stories covering leadership, conflict resolution...", "Practice mock interviews with a timer"), but it stays at the advisory level with no templates, sample questions, or copy-paste-ready artifacts, and items like "Master the fundamental patterns" describe rather than instruct at usable depth. Not score 1 because specific counts/steps are given; not score 3 because nothing is fully executable or artifact-ready.

Sequenced sub-workflows exist (system design: requirements → estimate → architecture → deep-dive; coding: restate → clarify → approach → implement → test → optimize), but there is no overall prep workflow and no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops. Not score 1 because sequences are present; not score 3 because checkpoints are implicit and error-recovery steps are missing.

The skill is a self-contained SKILL.md under 50 lines with no bundle files, organized into clear sections (Principles, Techniques, Common Patterns, Pitfalls) and no nested references. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, this qualifies for a top score with well-organized sections alone. Not score 2 because nothing is monolithic or in need of splitting.

The description names the domain and three sub-areas ("algorithms, system design, and behavioral questions") but frames it as a persona ("preparation expert") rather than concrete actions like "prepares stories" or "runs mock interviews". Not score 1 because it does specify domains; not score 3 because no multiple specific concrete actions are listed.

It states what the skill is (interview prep across three areas) but has no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which the rubric caps at 2. Not score 1 because the "what" is clearly present; not score 3 because "when" is only implied, not explicit.

Includes natural terms users would say — "technical interview preparation", "algorithms", "system design", "behavioral questions" — covering the main ways a candidate asks for interview help. Not score 2 because it already spans the common variations rather than missing them.

"Technical interview preparation" is a clear niche with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with unrelated skills. Not score 2 because the three named interview areas make it sufficiently specific rather than broadly overlapping.