Names the domain (hospital discharge summaries) and a couple of inputs (admission data, hospital course), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond 'generate'. It could mention specific sections like medication reconciliation, follow-up instructions, diagnosis coding, etc.

Describes what the skill does (generate discharge summaries) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2, and since the 'when' is entirely missing, this scores a 1.

Includes relevant terms like 'hospital discharge summaries', 'admission data', and 'hospital course', but misses common variations users might say such as 'discharge note', 'patient summary', 'discharge instructions', 'DC summary', or 'clinical summary'.

The description targets a very specific clinical documentation niche—hospital discharge summaries—which is unlikely to conflict with other skills. The medical domain specificity makes it clearly distinguishable.

Extremely verbose and repetitive. Contains numerous sections that add no value (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria with generic test cases). Multiple cross-references to sections that don't exist ('See ## Prerequisites above'). The Audit-Ready Commands section lists `--help` three times. Much of the content is boilerplate that Claude already knows (error handling principles, input validation concepts, response templates).

The input JSON schema is concrete and well-defined, and the CLI parameters table is useful. However, the actual script is never shown—we only see how to invoke it. The workflow steps are generic ('Confirm the user objective') rather than specific to discharge summary generation. No example of actual output is provided, and the 'Example run plan' is vague.

There is a numbered workflow, but it is generic and not specific to discharge summary generation. Steps like 'Validate that the request matches the documented scope' are abstract. The safety considerations mention physician review, but there's no explicit validation checkpoint integrated into the workflow itself (e.g., validate medication dosages before finalizing). The error handling section provides some fallback guidance but is disconnected from the main workflow.

References to external files (references/discharge_template.md, references/medical_terms.json, references/section_guidelines.md) are mentioned, which is good. However, the SKILL.md itself is a monolithic wall of text with many sections that could be externalized (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria). The cross-references ('See ## Prerequisites above') point to sections that appear later in the document, creating confusion.