Conciseness

The body is efficient — templates, rules, and rationale with little padding — but a few rhetorical flourishes could be trimmed, e.g. "Subjectivity is the enemy here" and "an agent expanding scope feels like helpfulness — it has no way to know it's doing something unwanted". Not score 5: these explanatory asides, while useful, aren't all earning their tokens; not score 3: there is no genuinely unnecessary explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: exact file paths (`requirements/{feature-name}/`), copy-paste markdown templates for all three documents, TODO comment patterns to insert, and concrete good/bad criterion examples ("the user completes registration in under 3 steps without consulting help documentation"). Not score 5: no fully worked example of a completed document pair, which would remove remaining ambiguity about story grain and criterion phrasing.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear and includes an explicit pre-write verification checklist ("Before writing, verify: every user story has a corresponding acceptance criterion entry; no acceptance criterion is subjective...") plus developer-confirmation and TODO-flagging checkpoints. Not score 5: the workflow is distributed across Usage / The Three Documents / Where to Find Input / Output sections rather than presented as one ordered sequence, and there is no post-write re-check loop.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill has no bundle files and stays a single ~100-line SKILL.md with well-organized, clearly headed sections; the only external pointers are to project files (`docs/functional/glossary.md`, `docs/constitution.md`), which is appropriate. Not score 5: at this length the three per-document format templates are borderline candidates for reference files, keeping the main body leaner.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete outputs — "(user stories, acceptance criteria, out-of-scope)" — naming the full set of deliverables the skill produces, which comprehensively covers its capability space. Not score 4: no meaningful coverage gaps exist; the three document types are the complete action inventory for this skill.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ("Generates requirements documentation (user stories, acceptance criteria, out-of-scope) for a feature in an AI-native MVP project") and when ("Invoke before any implementation of a new feature begins"). This matches the score-5 anchor of a clear what plus concrete, explicit when-clauses.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present: "If the developer mentions wanting to add or implement something new, trigger this skill before any code is written" and "Invoke before any implementation of a new feature begins". Not score 5: misses common synonyms a user might say, such as "spec", "requirements", "build a feature", or "define scope".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche — requirements documentation gated before feature implementation in an AI-native MVP project — with triggers ("before any implementation of a new feature begins") that are distinct from general coding or documentation skills. Minimal conflict risk.