Conciseness

The body does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but the 'terminal/read-only/do-not-implement/handoff' message repeats across Terminal By Default, Workflow step 5, Stop Rules, and the Output Contract, and routing recurs across Activate When, Do Not Activate When, Specialist Routing, and Workflow. It is not a 4 because the redundancy is more than minor, and not a 2 because it is not severely padded.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: named specialists (explore, researcher, dependency-expert), a copy-paste Output Contract template, and specific source-quality rules (include URLs, state date/version). It is not a 5 because no worked example covers a common case end-to-end, and not a 3 because the guidance is specific rather than pseudocode-level.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with decision checkpoints (stop when grounded enough, route upward, report exact blocker) reinforced by Stop Rules. It is not a 5 because there is no explicit validate-then-fix-then-retry feedback loop, and not a 3 because checkpoints are present and explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed; the skill is self-contained and well-sectioned with clear headers. It is not a 5 because at ~80 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold and routing content overlaps across sections, and not a 3 because structure is clearly good with no monolithic wall or buried references.

Specificity

Names the domain ('best-practice research') and one concrete behavior ('using official/upstream evidence first'), matching the anchor that lists domain plus 1-2 concrete actions. It is not a 2 because it does more than generically name the domain, and not a 4 because no list of several specific actions is given.

Completeness

The description gives a clear 'what' ('best-practice research wrapper using official/upstream evidence first') but includes no 'Use when...' trigger clause, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline. It is not a 4 because 'when' is entirely absent, and not a 2 because the 'what' is explicit rather than vague.

Trigger Term Quality

'best-practice' is a natural term users say, and 'official/upstream evidence' is partially natural, but common variations like standards, guidance, recommendations, or documentation are missing. It is not a 4 because keyword coverage is thin beyond 'best-practice', and not a 2 because at least one genuinely natural keyword is present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'best-practice research' niche with 'official/upstream evidence first' is somewhat specific, but unresolved overlap with sibling research skills (researcher, deep-research) keeps it at the 'somewhat specific but could overlap' anchor. It is not a 4 because the conflict with those skills is non-trivial within the description alone, and not a 2 because the niche is narrower than 'very broad'.