Conciseness

The worked 5-Why example, the 6M fishbone category table, and the RCA method-selection decision tree all appear inline in SKILL.md and again in references/rca-methodologies.md, and the Reference Documentation section re-enumerates that same content — mostly efficient, but the duplication (~80 lines that could simply live in the reference) means it could be tightened. Not 4 because the overlap is systematic rather than a few trimmable instances; not 2 because most tables and templates earn their place and no space is spent explaining concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready ("python scripts/capa_tracker.py --capas capas.json --output json"), the sample CAPA JSON input is complete, the action-plan template is fill-in concrete with success criteria and verification fields, and the worked calibration 5-Why example covers the common case. Fits 'fully executable; copy-paste ready; specific examples cover the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

All three workflows (investigation, action planning, effectiveness verification) are numbered 1-8 with bolded validation steps, evidence and root-cause validation checklists are provided, and the effectiveness decision tree includes an explicit error-recovery feedback loop ("CAPA INEFFECTIVE → re-investigate root cause / revise actions"). Matches 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists'.

Progressive Disclosure

Both referenced files (references/rca-methodologies.md, references/effectiveness-verification-guide.md) exist, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled both inline ("See `references/...` for complete method details") and in a Reference Documentation section with contents lists. However, scripts/root_cause_analyzer.py exists in the bundle but is never mentioned in SKILL.md, leaving a bundled tool undiscoverable — a minor organization gap fitting anchor 4 rather than the clean 5.

Specificity

"Covers root cause analysis, corrective action planning, effectiveness verification, and CAPA metrics" lists four concrete capabilities spanning the full CAPA lifecycle within a named domain ("medical device QMS"), matching the comprehensive multi-action anchor; not 4 because coverage is complete rather than having minor gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("CAPA system management for medical device QMS. Covers root cause analysis...") and when ("Use when running CAPA investigations, 5-Why analysis, fishbone diagrams...") with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the anchor 5 pattern; not 4 because the 'when' clause is fully explicit rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ("CAPA investigations", "5-Why analysis", "fishbone diagrams", "corrective action tracking", "effectiveness verification"), but common variations like "preventive action" and "nonconformance investigation" are missing from the description itself, which fits the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive one.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The medical-device QMS CAPA niche is distinct with domain-specific triggers (5-Why, fishbone, CAPA), but "root cause analysis" and "corrective action" are broad phrases that could fire in non-QMS contexts (e.g., software debugging), giving minor overlap risk with related quality/process skills — fits 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than minimal conflict risk.