Conciseness

Efficient and opinionated with no padding over concepts Claude already knows — every section (tier floors, anti-patterns, assumptions) adds domain-specific judgment. Minor over-explanation exists in the duplicated routing: "Do not use for" and "Distinct from" restate the same five re-routes (sales-engineer, channel-economics, cro-advisor, ma-playbook, deal-desk), and the 50-line forcing-question library runs long with per-question citation paragraphs. Not 5 because of that redundancy; not 3 because nothing is generic filler.

Actionability

Concrete, runnable commands throughout: `scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py --input intake.json --profile saas --output markdown`, a copy-paste `python3 scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py --sample` quick example, and noted `--help`/`--sample` on all scripts, with all three scripts present in the bundle. Minor gaps keep it from 5: the intake.json → gtm.json → revshare.json handoff (where the second and third input files come from) is never specified, and no example input/output is shown inline.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 5-step workflow with explicit validation gates: Step 1 has a stop condition ("If the intake template can't be honestly filled out... Stop. Go back to them."), Step 2 has deterministic floors ("STRATEGIC requires named_accounts ≥ 5 AND multi-year commit AND dedicated resources"), Steps 3-4 enforce tier-consistency rules ("cannot plan channel-led GTM for REFERRAL tier"), and the forcing-question library mandates locking questions 1-3 before opening 4-6 before invoking the scripts in sequence, plus mandatory kill criteria. Not 4 because checkpoints are explicit, not implicit; the missing 'verify script output' loop is immaterial for a decision-support skill with no destructive or batch operations.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: SKILL.md is an overview with a Scripts section, a References section where each of the three reference files gets a one-line content summary and exists as verified one-level-deep standalone content, plus an assets intake template. Minor gaps: the ~50-line forcing-question library is fully inlined in SKILL.md where the reference files' style would suit it, and reference descriptions are dense author-citation lists rather than clear per-topic navigation signposts. Not 5 because of the inlined question library; not 3 because all heavy content (canon, anti-patterns, script logic) is properly split out.

Specificity

Multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the skill's output surface: "Classifies partner tier from independent-demand evidence vs. preferential-terms hunting, designs a 90-day joint GTM plan, models revshare against direct-sale margin, and surfaces kill criteria for unwinding under-performing partnerships" — four distinct, well-scoped capabilities plus the decision outputs (sign/tier/GTM commitment/revshare).

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — tier classification, 90-day joint GTM plan, revshare modeling, kill criteria; and when — "Use when a startup is approached by a prospective partner and someone has to decide should we sign this partner..." plus audience/triggers "For Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs doing reseller agreement, OEM deal, or strategic alliance review". Clear anchor-5 match; not 4 because the 'when' is fully explicit with concrete trigger phrases rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural domain phrases a Head of Partnerships would actually say: "reseller agreement, OEM deal, or strategic alliance review", "partner tier (referral / reseller / OEM / SI-consulting / strategic alliance)", "revshare", "joint GTM". A few common variations are missing (e.g., "channel partner", "co-sell", "partner program", "partner negotiation"), which keeps it just below comprehensive.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (per-partnership signing/tier/revshare design) with explicit negative boundaries — "not technical sale enablement, not channel cost economics, not M&A" — and role-scoped triggers. Minimal conflict risk with adjacent sales/channel skills.