Conciseness

The "Do not use for" and "Distinct from" sections each detail the same five sibling skills (sales-engineer, channel-economics, cro-advisor, ma-playbook, deal-desk) in full, and the Scripts section repeats names/purposes already given in the Workflow steps. No padding with concepts Claude already knows, but the cross-section duplication is substantive tightening work, not minor. Not 4: redundancy spans whole sections rather than isolated instances.

Actionability

Commands are concrete and flag-complete ("scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py --input intake.json --profile saas --output markdown"), the Quick example is copy-paste ready, intake fields are enumerated, and tier floors are deterministic ("STRATEGIC requires named_accounts ≥ 5 AND multi-year commit"). Not 5: input schemas for gtm.json and revshare.json are never specified, leaving gaps in the common cases. Not 3: guidance is fully executable, not high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps with durations, an explicit stop-gate ("If the intake template can't be honestly filled out... Stop. Go back to them."), tier-validated constraints in Step 3, and a final decision step requiring kill criteria in the contract. Not 5: no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do when a script's validation rejects the plan), though the domain is not destructive/batch so the cap doesn't apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and references are clearly signaled one level deep (three references files, three scripts, one intake template), but the actual bundle contains no scripts/, references/, or assets/ directories — every referenced path is missing, so the apparent content split is illusory and navigation dead-ends. Not 4: missing referenced files are more than minor organization gaps; not 2: the body itself is well-structured, not monolithic or buried.

Specificity

Lists four concrete, distinct capabilities — "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" — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's actions in third-person voice. Not 4: no coverage gaps; every core function is explicitly named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both halves: "Use when a startup is approached by a prospective partner and someone has to decide should we sign this partner, at what partner tier..., with what joint GTM commitment, and at what revshare" (when) plus the four-action capability list (what). Not 4: the when-clause is fully explicit with concrete decision triggers, not just implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural terms and synonyms users would actually say: "prospective partner", "referral / reseller / OEM / SI-consulting / strategic alliance", "revshare", "joint GTM", "reseller agreement", "OEM deal", "strategic alliance review", plus role names (Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, Founder-CEOs). Not 4: synonym coverage spans all five tier types, matching the anchor's breadth.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (partnership tier/GTM/revshare design) with explicit negative triggers — "not technical sale enablement, not channel cost economics, not M&A" — that separate it from adjacent skills. Not 4: the exclusion list plus role scoping leaves minimal overlap risk.