Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient for an instruction skill, but the anti-fake-precision message is restated across 'Scope Boundary', 'Important Distinction', 'Hard Rules', 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and 'Quality Standard', adding noticeable padding. It is above a 2 because each section does carry distinct content, but below a 4 due to the repeated restatements that could be consolidated.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and specific: an 8-step execution sequence, a mandatory 12-section output structure, and explicit assumption classification taxonomies give Claude clear, executable direction. It is not a 5 because there are no worked examples or concrete numeric/template anchors, and not a 3 because the guidance is largely complete rather than pseudocode-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

Steps are clearly sequenced (Clarify -> Identify driver -> Select family -> Audit -> Stance -> Scenarios -> Fragility -> Memo) with a clarification gate in Step 1 and checkpoints such as the mandatory output structure. It is not a 5 because there is no explicit validate/fix/retry feedback loop, and not a 3 because checkpoints are present and the sequence is well defined.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview that signals five one-level-deep reference files (all confirmed present in references/), each annotated with its purpose and when to use it, with no nested references. This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor directly.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions ('sample size estimation logic, power assumptions, feasibility checks, and fallback enrollment strategies') rather than vague language, with only minor coverage gaps. It falls below a 5 because the actions are planning-framing verbs rather than a fully comprehensive set of distinct operations, and above a 3 because more than 1-2 specific actions are named.

Completeness

It has a clear 'what' but no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit 'when' guidance, so per the rubric a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3. It is above a 2 because the 'what' is specific and multi-part, but cannot reach 4 without an explicit usage-trigger clause.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant keywords a user might say ('sample size', 'power', 'feasibility', 'enrollment', 'clinical and translational study protocols') but omits common variations and natural phrasings like 'How many patients do I need' or 'underpowered'. It is not a 4 because several natural trigger phrases are missing, and not a 2 because the terms present are domain-relevant rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (sample size and power planning for clinical/translational protocols) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk against other skills. It sits cleanly at the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor rather than the 4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk'.