Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what a trademark is or basic linguistics, and every check definition carries an instruction or example (e.g. "framåt → 'frame'", "❌ reads as slur (EN)"). It falls short of anchor 5 because of minor duplication: the Overview repeats the frontmatter's Anali/framåt examples, the sound-symbolism-transfer caveat appears both in Step 2's Sound check and again in Anti-Patterns, and the compact-table-by-default rule is stated in Step 4 and restated in Anti-Patterns. It is clearly above anchor 3, which would require genuinely unnecessary explanation rather than restatement.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: concrete gates ("Are you looking to find a new name, or check one you already have?"), a hard three-constraint rule ("A name that meets only two of the three is not a valid suggestion — drop it and find another"), specific rejection criteria in 3c, a concrete output format spec ("symbol plus 2–4 words", example cells), and a closing verification checklist. Specific examples cover the common cases, matching anchor 5 adapted to instruction-only skills per the rubric's scoring note; nothing is left as vague direction.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–5 are clearly sequenced (gather → checks → suggest → present → hand over) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the opening find-or-check gate ("ask one question first, and wait for the answer"), the re-validation loop in 3e ("Run every surviving candidate through the Step 2 checks"), the drop-and-retry loop for failed suggestions, the honesty fallback ("If unsure whether a name carries an odd meaning... recommend a native-speaker check"), and the Step 5 checklist. This matches anchor 5's clear sequence with explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and a checklist; the operations are advisory, so no destructive/batch cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The in-body structure is good — clear sections and two well-signaled, one-level-deep references with explicit read-when conditions ("read it when a founder asks why", "See Scenario A in references/worked-examples.md"). However, scored against the actual bundle, both referenced files (references/naming-research.md and references/worked-examples.md) do not exist — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present — so the navigation the body promises fails. This drops it below anchor 4 ('references mostly clear; minor organization gaps'), because the gaps are not minor: two of the skill's depth resources are missing entirely. It sits above anchor 3's example (misplaced inline bulk), but the broken reference structure makes 3 the best fit.

Specificity

"Suggest, pick, or vet a business, startup, or product name" lists several concrete actions in a clearly named domain, and trigger phrases imply further capabilities ("spotting bad meanings in other languages", "making a name sound trustworthy in a specific market"). It sits between anchor 3 (only 1-2 concrete actions) and anchor 5 (comprehensive coverage): more actions than 3, but the deeper per-market fit checks and trademark-strength guidance are only implied rather than enumerated as capabilities, so 4 fits best.

Completeness

"What" is explicit ("Suggest, pick, or vet a business, startup, or product name that stays true to the founder's cultural origin while working professionally in the markets they want to sell into") and "when" is explicit with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when someone is naming a company, brand, or product...", "Trigger this for any request about choosing a business name, checking if a name 'works' abroad..."). This matches anchor 5 exactly; anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are covered comprehensively with synonyms across the domain: "naming a company, brand, or product", "choosing a business name", "checking if a name 'works' abroad", "spotting bad meanings in other languages", "making a name sound trustworthy in a specific market". This matches anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage (business/startup/product/company/brand all present); anchor 4 would require identifiable missing natural terms, and the only near-synonyms not present (e.g. "rebrand") are already subsumed by the explicit 'any request about choosing a business name' clause.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Cross-cultural business-name suggestion and vetting is a clear niche with distinct triggers ("how it lands across languages and regions", "spotting bad meanings in other languages"), unlikely to fire for adjacent skills like brand-guidelines or copywriting, which trigger on identity systems or taglines rather than choosing a name. Matches anchor 5 (clear niche, distinct triggers, minimal conflict risk); anchor 4 would require notable overlap with a closely related skill, and none is apparent.