Conciseness

The body is lean with no padding or explanation of what sycophancy is; every line instructs an action and assumes Claude's competence.

Actionability

Provides a concrete 4-step procedure and a specific pushback decision rule (categorise as new evidence vs repeated opinion, then update or restate), with only minor gaps in worked examples.

Workflow Clarity

The Process is a clearly sequenced 4-step flow plus an explicit feedback loop for disagreement (a/b/c), which serves as the validation checkpoint; no destructive/batch cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

A simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references; the three well-organized sections (When to Use, Process, Limitations) satisfy the simple-skill exception.

Specificity

Names three concrete behaviors ('Challenge user claims independently', 'avoid agreement bias', 'state evidence before deference'); slightly short of the comprehensive multi-action coverage of a 5.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent 'when' guidance, which the rubric caps at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like 'sycophantic agreement patterns' and 'agreement bias' are abstract jargon a user would rarely say; no natural trigger keywords are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The anti-sycophancy niche is fairly distinct from typical coding skills, though its behavioral posture could overlap with general critical-thinking skills, leaving minor conflict risk.