Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — the protocol, template, and grading test carry real information per token — but a few meta sentences earn nothing at runtime: 'Design provenance: every decision here was pinned by a wayfinder map (7 tickets)…', 'no math is borrowed from deep-interview', and 'It stands on the verifiability boundary'. This is 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' (4), not anchor 5 where every token earns its place.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: a six-step numbered protocol, the full intent.md template, an answer-format example ('1 是; 2 不确定'), the quoted 阻塞 grading test, and explicit paths and statuses. Minor gaps keep it at 4: the tracker record's file location and format are never specified, and the 'opening inventory' display format is only implied.

Workflow Clarity

The conversation is a clearly sequenced numbered process with an explicit validation checklist (the stop gate enumerates pass criteria for all five sections), a re-inventory loop for remaining gaps, bounded retries (soft prompt at round 6, hard cap at round 12), and a feedback loop where rejection reasons drive revision and resubmission. This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and a checklist.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so the skill is scored on its single-file organization: clear section headers, a well-signaled template block, and no content that clearly belongs in a separate file. It sits at 'good structure; minor organization gaps' (4) rather than 5 because the downstream Amendment and Conflict sedimentation sections describe post-acceptance processes that could live in a one-level reference file.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions covering the full lifecycle — 'turn a pasted chat log or verbal problem report into a five-section intent.md through numbered batch questioning with a completion gate', 'walk it through tracker review with harbor's four records', and 'hand the accepted intent to /launch as its mission brief' — in third person. Coverage is comprehensive across intake, review, and handoff, matching the top anchor rather than the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor below.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and detailed, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the audience hint 'for non-engineer contributors (support/ops)' only weakly implies when to invoke it. Per the judging guideline, a missing 'when' clause caps completeness at 3, which this matches exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'pasted chat log', 'verbal problem report', 'requirements intake', and 'support/ops' give good keyword coverage, but internal jargon ('harbor's four records', 'mission brief') dilutes it and common user synonyms like 'customer feedback' or 'bug report' are absent. It sits above anchor 3 (missing common variations) but short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Shipyard's internal requirements intake', 'intent.md', 'Produces decisions, not code', and the /launch handoff define a clear niche with distinct triggers that no other skill would plausibly claim. This matches the top anchor; it is not anchor 4 because there is no realistic overlap with a closely related skill.