Conciseness

The body is directive and table-driven with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but includes minor padding such as the roleplay line 'You are an expert customer researcher' and framing sentences like 'Online communities are where customers speak without a filter'. Not a 5 because a few sentences could be trimmed without losing guidance.

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready templates (persona structure, research synthesis template), concrete thresholds (5-10 data points per segment, 12-month recency window, 3+ independent sources for High confidence), and explicit extraction fields give fully executable guidance for an instruction-only skill. Not below 5 — every section tells Claude exactly what to produce and by what criteria.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequence (context check → mode selection → extraction → synthesis → deliverable) with quality checkpoints (confidence labeling, sample bias checks, minimum viable sample, 'Ask the user which deliverable(s) they need'). Not a 5 because there are no explicit validate-and-retry feedback loops, and the guardrails act as implicit rather than enforced checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

One clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ('read references/source-guides.md for detailed playbooks, search operators, and per-platform extraction tips') that exists in the bundle, with per-platform detail correctly offloaded. Not a 5 because the ~270-line body could move a bit more (e.g., persona template or extraction framework) into references to keep SKILL.md a tighter overview.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ('conduct, analyze, and synthesize customer research', 'build personas', 'uncover jobs-to-be-done') with domain-specific objects (surveys, interviews, community mining). Not a 5 because coverage has gaps — review mining, VOC, and win/loss analysis from the skill body are absent.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and concrete, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not a 2 because the 'what' is specific rather than vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains natural phrases users would say ('customer research', 'surveys', 'interviews', 'personas', 'jobs-to-be-done'). Not a 5 because common variations present in the body's When-to-Use list ('voice of customer', 'ICP research', 'review mining') are missing from the description.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Distinct niche vocabulary (personas, jobs-to-be-done, community mining) makes confusion with unrelated skills unlikely. Not a 5 because it could mildly overlap with adjacent research/marketing skills (copywriting research, churn analysis) that share the term 'customer research'.