Conciseness

The 'Implementation Details' section extensively re-explains textbook statistics Claude already knows ('normal + equal variances → Student's t-test', 'non-normal/ordinal → Mann–Whitney U', 't-tests: Cohen's d', 'ANOVA: partial η²', 'chi-square: Cramér's V'), duplicating content that the referenced files already cover. Generic template sections ('Required Inputs', 'Output Contract', 'Input Validation', 'User Checkpoints') add further padded, skill-agnostic boilerplate, matching the 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' anchor.

Actionability

The example is concrete and nearly runnable end-to-end (synthetic data, assumption checks, t-test with effect size, power analysis, APA output string), and the script's `comprehensive_assumption_check(data, value_col, group_col, alpha)` signature matches the actual bundle code. Minor gaps prevent a 5: the import is hedged ('If your repo provides this module... otherwise comment it out') and `scripts/assumption_checks.py` imports `seaborn`, which is absent from the Dependencies list.

Workflow Clarity

Implementation Details sections 1–5 mirror the analysis sequence (select test → check assumptions → effect size → power → report), the worked example demonstrates that order, and validation checkpoints exist (assumption check before inference, 'Quick Validation' section, warnings against post-hoc power). It is not 5 because no explicit stepwise workflow is written out for the guided-selection flow itself — the sequence must be inferred from the example and section ordering.

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled and one level deep, but the body's self-described 'primary decision aid' — `references/test_selection_guide.md` — does not exist in the bundle despite being cited three times, a substantive navigation defect. Additionally, the inline test-selection mappings in 'Implementation Details' duplicate content that belongs in that (missing) reference file, matching the 'some structure but could be better organized' anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor of 4.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'test selection, assumption checks, power analysis, and APA-style reporting' plus 'effect sizes and diagnostics' — naming the domain clearly. It falls short of 5 because coverage has minor gaps (e.g., Bayesian workflows and regression variants covered by the skill are not mentioned).

Completeness

The first sentence explicitly states what the skill does, and 'Use when you need to choose an appropriate statistical test for your data and produce publication-ready results' provides a concrete, explicit when-trigger. Both what and when are clearly and explicitly answered.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'choose an appropriate statistical test', 'power analysis', and 'APA-style reporting' match what users would actually say. A few common terms are missing (e.g., 'sample size', 'which test should I use', 'p-value'), keeping it below the comprehensive-synonym level of 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (guided test selection, assumption checks, APA-style reporting) has distinct triggers that would not fire for unrelated skills. Minor overlap risk remains with generic data-analysis or visualization skills, so it does not fully match the minimal-conflict anchor of 5.