Conciseness

The ~800-line body restates the same rules many times: prompt-budget handling appears in Execution_Policy, Phase 1 step 3.6, Step 2a, Phase 4, Phase 5, and the Final_Checklist, and the Phase 0 threshold protocol is repeated in step 3.5, the announcement, and the checklist, plus plugin-internal material like the 'Native Plugin Invocation Guard (Issue #3030)'. This is noticeably verbose with several padded/redundant sections, matching anchor 2 rather than the mostly-efficient profile of anchor 3.

Actionability

The body provides copy-paste-ready artifacts: the full ambiguity-scoring prompt, exact formulas, exact JSON state schemas, exact spec paths, a complete spec template, and concrete Good/Bad examples. Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5: state_write/state_read are used without interface detail, and the docs/company-context-interface.md reference has no backing file in the bundle.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0-5 are explicitly sequenced with per-round validation (score after every answer, threshold gate, weakest-dimension targeting), soft limits at rounds 10/20, escalation and stop conditions, and a final checklist. This matches the anchor for a clear sequence with explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

No references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist; everything including the Examples section, the full spec template, and Advanced configuration is inlined into one ~50KB monolithic SKILL.md, and the one external pointer (docs/company-context-interface.md) is dangling. Content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined, matching anchor 2; it is above anchor 1 only because the internal section structure is well organized.

Specificity

The description names its domain ('Socratic deep interview') and two concrete mechanisms ('mathematical ambiguity gating', 'explicit execution approval'), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It does not list several specific actions, so it is not a 4.

Completeness

It conveys a clear 'what' (Socratic interviewing gated by an ambiguity threshold before execution approval) but provides no 'when' / 'Use when' guidance at all, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. The 'what' is concrete enough that it is not the vague-what-no-when case of anchor 2.

Trigger Term Quality

'Socratic' and 'deep interview' are natural keywords some users would say, but the description omits common phrasings like 'vague idea', 'interview me', or 'clarify requirements' and leans on jargon ('mathematical ambiguity gating'). Keyword coverage is partial with missing variations, matching anchor 3 rather than the good coverage of anchor 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Socratic deep interview' carves a distinct niche (requirements clarification) with triggers unlikely to collide with file-manipulation or execution skills; only minor overlap risk with general planning/spec skills, matching anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict clarity of anchor 5.