Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no priming on what clinical trials or epidemiology are; the Framing section adds only non-obvious guidance with concrete examples. Score 4 rather than 5 because resumption guidance is stated twice ("If the workdir already has waypoints, read them, summarize what's done, and ask which phase to resume from" in Output layout, then again nearly verbatim in "## Resuming"), which could be merged.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: defined inputs with defaults ("Defaults to ./do_not_commit/indication-dossier-<slug>/"), a tools table with fallback behavior, an output file tree, and per-phase instructions naming what to establish, which tools to use, and which waypoint file to write. Score 4 rather than 5 because the body delegates the actual step-by-step execution detail to the reference files, so a reader of the body alone has minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Five phases are clearly sequenced, each with a resumable waypoint checkpoint and a required ≤200-word summary; Phase 1 has an explicit validation gate (ask_user with Proceed / Revise identity / Stop) with a graceful fallback ("proceeding on this interpretation; interrupt now to correct it"), and resumption rules include a never-overwrite-without-confirmation safeguard. This matches anchor 5's explicit validation steps and error-recovery feedback loop.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references (references/00 through 06 plus waypoint-schemas.md), all of which exist in the bundle and contain substantive per-phase detail; each is loaded exactly when its phase runs. Cross-references between reference files stay within one level, matching anchor 5's clear overview with easy navigation.

Specificity

"Generate a therapeutic indication dossier" is a concrete action and the enumerated scope ("patient population, epidemiology, disease biology, standard of care, regulatory precedent, and landmark clinical trials") gives comprehensive domain coverage. It sits between anchor 3 (only 1-2 concrete actions) and anchor 5 (multiple specific actions), since there is really one action verb plus a coverage list — so 4, not 3 (coverage is more comprehensive than 1-2 items) and not 5 (no additional concrete actions like searching, summarizing, or citing).

Completeness

The "what" is clear (generate a dossier covering six named areas), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which the rubric explicitly caps at 3. It is not 2 because the 'what' is concrete and specific, and not 4 because no 'when' is even weakly present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain keywords are present: "indication dossier", "epidemiology", "clinical trials", "standard of care" — terms a user requesting this kind of pharma research would plausibly say. A few natural variants are missing (e.g., "indication research", "target dossier", "competitive landscape"), keeping it at 4 rather than 5; it is well above anchor 3's 'relevant keywords but missing common variations'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Therapeutic indication dossier" is a distinct niche deliverable with unlikely overlap against generic research or document skills, and the enumerated scope reinforces the boundary. Clear niche with minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5.