Conciseness

The body is prescriptive rather than explanatory — tables, parsing rules, an exact bash resolver, and a fill-in template with no padding about concepts Claude already knows. It sits at the 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' anchor rather than 5 because of redundancy: the closing Success Criteria section largely restates the per-phase checkpoints, and PHASE_7_CHECKPOINT items repeat the summary template's own contents.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready: the executable PRP store-resolver bash block, explicit argument-parsing rules ('Strip --orchestration ... Remaining text = research question'), kebab-case slug rules with worked examples, and an exact markdown template for the output plan covering the common cases. It is not a 4 because no key execution detail is left to inference.

Workflow Clarity

Seven phases are clearly sequenced with a numbered checkpoint checklist after every phase, and explicit validation gates with feedback loops: 'If question is empty after parsing → STOP with error', 'GATE: If the research question is too vague → STOP and ASK', and Phase 6's 'Do NOT proceed to Phase 7 until the research plan file passes validation — all 6 required sections must be present'. This matches the 5 anchor's validate-fix-retry pattern; a 4 would lack some of these explicit checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The file is well-sectioned with clear headers, but it is a single ~540-line monolith with no bundle files at all: the ~160-line research-plan template in Phase 6.4 and the Team Orchestration Guide are inlined content that would naturally live in references/ files, matching the 'some structure, content that should be separate is inline' anchor. It is above a 2 because structure and navigation within the file are good, and below a 4 because no one-level-deep references exist to offload the bulk.

Specificity

The description lists three concrete, sequenced actions — 'analyzes question, composes team, creates executable research plan' — under a named domain (dynamic research team design using agent teams), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of a 5 because it omits concrete coverage details like the plan-only nature and the output deliverable, and is above a 3 because more than 1-2 actions are explicitly named.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' via 'analyzes question, composes team, creates executable research plan' and 'when' via the concrete trigger clause 'Use when the user wants to plan multi-agent research on a question or topic, or invokes /prp-research-team'. This matches the 5 anchor with concrete trigger phrases; a 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include natural phrases users would say — 'plan multi-agent research', 'research on a question or topic' — plus the explicit slash invocation '/prp-research-team', giving good keyword coverage. A few natural synonyms ('deep research', 'research plan', 'literature review') are missing, keeping it below the comprehensive 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-agent research-planning niche with its slash-command trigger is mostly distinct — 'plan multi-agent research' and '/prp-research-team' are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. There is minor overlap risk with general research/deep-research skills on the bare words 'research' and 'question', which a 5 would avoid by a clearly unmatched trigger set.