Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — no basic-concept explanations, commands given inline, detail delegated to references. But the 'treat the first real run as a pilot / not validated on real data' guidance is repeated nearly verbatim in 'Exercise status' and twice in 'Honest limits', and the anti-patterns list slightly overlaps the honest-limits section — minor tightening available. Anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed') fits better than 5 because of this redundancy.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: every workflow step is a concrete command with flags ('python3 scripts/route.py --goal <goal> --respondent <who>', 'verify_quotes.py --transcript t_nl.txt --claims claims.json', 'consensus.py run1.json run2.json run3.json', 'score_insights.py nuggets.json --k 3'), a copy-paste bash block shows sample invocations, and all 15 scripts are stated to be stdlib-only with '--help', '--sample', and '--output {human,json}'. Common cases are covered.

Workflow Clarity

The S0-S8 pipeline is explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints at every stage (S1 transcript QA, S2 quote verify + entailment check, S3 reliability council flagging disagreement, S6.5 triangulated scoring with a >=k gate). Feedback loops are explicit ('If there's no exact quote, write NO QUOTE', flagged cells go to a human blind, calibrate thresholds on your own gold-set), and the anti-patterns section acts as an error-checklist — matching anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: the overview stays compact, with well-signaled one-level-deep references ('Full routing matrix...: references/intake.md', 'Full detail: references/pipeline.md and references/synthesis.md'), and all referenced files exist with no nested reference chains. Two minor gaps keep it below 5: the five files in assets/example-outputs/ are never referenced anywhere in SKILL.md or references/ (undiscoverable), and '../product-research/SKILL.md' cannot be resolved from this bundle. Anchor 4 ('minor organization gaps') is the best fit.

Specificity

Multiple concrete actions are named: 'Maps a single interview transcript into a verbatim-grounded, lens-coded structure', 'checks whether analytic conclusions hold across independent re-runs', plus quote verification and cross-interview synthesis (insight cards, patterns). Coverage is comprehensive for the stated domain, matching the anchor-5 example's breadth.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('Maps a single interview transcript into a verbatim-grounded, lens-coded structure and checks whether analytic conclusions hold across independent re-runs') and when ('Use when the user wants to code, map, interpret, or make sense of an interview transcript...'), with concrete trigger phrases. It also adds explicit negative scope ('Not for generating new interviews, not for plain audio transcription...').

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms are comprehensively covered with synonyms: 'interview transcript', 'depth interview', 'custdev', 'JTBD', 'expert', 'usability', 'exit', 'win-loss', 'focus-group session', 'code, map, interpret', and 'insight cards'. It even catches users who 'don't name a method'. No relevant file-extension triggers exist for this domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (transcript-level coding and verification) with explicit boundary markers: 'Not for generating new interviews, not for plain audio transcription, and not for research-method or sample-size planning above the transcript (see product-research)'. This actively routes adjacent intents to the right skill, minimizing conflict risk.