Conciseness

The ~55-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the H1 subtitle ("Comprehensive interview loop planning and calibration support") and the Overview sentence ("Use this skill to create structured interview loops, standardize question quality...") restate the same capability summary that Core Capabilities then expands a third time; not 3 because nothing is over-explained.

Actionability

Concrete form exists — "python3 scripts/interview_planner.py --role \"Senior Software Engineer\" --level senior" with a --json variant — but that script does not exist in the bundle, so the commands are not executable, no sample output is shown, and workflow steps like "Align rounds to role-specific competencies" give no how. Not 4 because the gaps are not minor (the only executable path is broken and all substance is deferred to absent files); not 2 because the commands, flags, and sequenced workflow do provide some concrete starting guidance.

Workflow Clarity

The Recommended Workflow gives a coherent 5-step sequence (generate baseline loop → align rounds → validate rubric → bias review → quarterly recalibration), but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops anywhere, and individual steps are under-specified. Not 4 because checkpoints are entirely absent rather than having minor gaps; not 2 because the sequence is coherent and each step is identifiable. Not a destructive/batch operation, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and references are clearly signaled one level deep in a dedicated References section. However, none of the referenced paths exist in the bundle — references/interview-frameworks.md, references/bias_mitigation_checklist.md, references/competency_matrix_templates.md, references/debrief_facilitation_guide.md, and scripts/interview_planner.py are all missing — so the detail layer the overview points to does not exist. Not 4/5 because content is not actually split anywhere (every split target is absent); not 2 because the in-file structure and signaling are good.

Specificity

The what-clause names the domain plus several concrete deliverables ("designing role-specific interview loops, competency assessments, and hiring calibration systems"), and the trigger list adds further actions ("generate interview questions", "analyze interviewer bias", "build question banks"). Not 5 because the what-clause omits capabilities its own triggers imply (question banks, bias analysis, rubric creation); not 3 because well more than 1-2 concrete actions are named.

Completeness

Explicit when ("This skill should be used when the user asks to ..." followed by concrete triggers) and explicit what ("Use for designing role-specific interview loops, competency assessments, and hiring calibration systems") are both clearly stated. Not 4 because the when-clause is fully explicit with enumerated trigger phrases rather than merely adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Nine natural verb-object phrases users would actually say: "design interview processes", "create hiring pipelines", "calibrate interview loops", "generate interview questions", "design competency matrices", "analyze interviewer bias", "create scoring rubrics", "build question banks", "optimize hiring systems" — covering the domain's natural vocabulary (loops, pipelines, matrices, banks, rubrics, bias). Not 4 because no significant natural term for this niche is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Seven of the nine triggers are unmistakably hiring-system-specific, giving a mostly distinct niche. Not 5 because "create scoring rubrics" could fire for grading/evaluation rubrics generally and "generate interview questions" is ambiguous with interview-prep requests; not 3 because the overlap risk is confined to those two generic phrases.