Conciseness

The body is lean and sectioned with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the opening paragraph ('Runs as five phases that write resumable waypoint files...') duplicates the Workflow section, and the Framing examples could be tightened. Not 5 due to this redundancy; not 3 because the padding is minor.

Actionability

Concrete orchestration throughout: exact waypoint filenames, an output layout tree, a tool table with an explicit fallback ('fall back to WebSearch against... clinicaltrials.gov'), a default workdir, and named ask_user options with a fallback line. Not 5 because per-phase execution detail and terms like 'quick CT.gov landscape scan' are deferred to reference files rather than specified, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Five explicitly ordered phases each end in a checkpoint (write the waypoint file, emit a summary), with an identity-validation gate after Phase 1 (Proceed / Revise identity / Stop), a resume protocol that never overwrites waypoints without confirmation, and tool-fallback handling. This matches the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation and error-recovery paths.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview and every one of the eight bundle files in references/ is real, one level deep, and clearly signaled ('Read references/01-meta-initialization.md') with each phase mapped to its reference. All files exist on disk and none is a stub, matching the anchor for well-signaled one-level-deep references.

Specificity

Names the deliverable ('Generate a therapeutic indication dossier') plus six concrete coverage areas (patient population, epidemiology, disease biology, standard of care, regulatory precedent, landmark clinical trials). Not 5 because it lists content areas rather than a comprehensive set of concrete actions; not 3 because coverage goes well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (generate a dossier covering six areas), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps this dimension at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain keywords like 'indication', 'dossier', 'patient population', 'epidemiology', 'standard of care', and 'clinical trials' are present. Not 5 because common synonyms such as 'disease landscape' or 'therapeutic area assessment' are missing; not 3 because the keyword set is strong rather than partial.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Therapeutic indication dossier' combined with 'regulatory precedent' and 'landmark clinical trials' carves a clear niche that would not plausibly trigger a different skill. Not 4 because no closely related skill category (e.g., general literature review) is at meaningful overlap risk with this description.