Conciseness

Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line is actionable guidance, matching the score-3 anchor and not the score-2 which carries unnecessary commentary.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout ("If...then...because" structure, "design experiments to reject H0", "power analysis", "pre-register hypotheses"); per scoring_notes, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when the guidance is actionable, so it clears the score-3 bar rather than settling at score-2.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced sub-processes with numbered steps and forward-looking checkpoints ("confirm vs. refute", "Plan for both positive and null results"); no destructive or batch operations requiring stricter feedback loops, so it meets the score-3 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines, single-purpose, and organized into well-labeled sections with no need for external references; scoring_notes allow a score-3 here for such simple skills, rather than the score-2 that implies poorly-split inline content.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "hypothesis generation from observations", "formulating testable hypotheses", "competing explanations", "experimental predictions" — matching the score-3 anchor.

Completeness

Answers both what (structured scientific hypothesis generation) and when via the explicit "Use when formulating..." clause, matching the score-3 example and not the score-2 which lacks an explicit when.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a researcher would actually say ("testable hypotheses", "competing explanations", "experimental predictions") give good coverage, matching the score-3 anchor rather than the narrower score-2.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clearly defined scientific-hypothesis niche with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with general skills; not the generic score-1 or the somewhat-overlapping score-2.