Names the domain (IACUC protocol applications) and one specific action (draft with 3Rs principles justification), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions like reviewing, editing, or specific sections of the protocol.

Describes what it does (draft IACUC protocol applications with 3Rs focus) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also only partially described, placing this at 1.

Includes domain-specific terms like 'IACUC', 'protocol applications', and '3Rs principles' which are relevant but somewhat technical. Missing common variations users might say like 'animal research', 'animal use protocol', 'replacement reduction refinement', or 'ethics review'.

IACUC protocol applications with 3Rs principles is a very specific niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. The combination of regulatory domain and specific framework makes it clearly distinguishable.

Extremely verbose and repetitive. Multiple sections reference each other circularly ('See ## Prerequisites above', 'See ## Usage above', 'See ## Workflow above'). Contains extensive boilerplate (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) that adds no IACUC-specific value. The same information (e.g., Python version, script path, validation commands) is repeated multiple times. Much of the content is generic skill scaffolding rather than domain-specific guidance about drafting IACUC protocols or the 3Rs principles.

The input JSON schema is concrete and well-structured, and the CLI parameters are clearly documented. However, the actual domain guidance on how to draft IACUC protocols and justify the 3Rs principles is almost entirely absent—there are no examples of good replacement/reduction/refinement justification text, no sample output, and the skill relies entirely on an opaque scripts/main.py without showing what it produces. The actionable content is limited to running a script.

There are multiple competing workflow sections that are vague and generic. The 'Example Usage' run plan, 'Implementation Details', and 'Workflow' sections all describe abstract steps like 'confirm the user objective' and 'validate that the request matches the documented scope' without concrete IACUC-specific checkpoints. No validation of the generated protocol content is described. The workflow for the actual domain task (drafting an IACUC protocol) is unclear.

There is a reference to references/audit-reference.md and the references/ directory, which is appropriate. However, the main file itself is a monolithic wall of text with many sections that could be separated or removed. The structure has too many headings with redundant content rather than a clean overview pointing to detailed materials.