Conciseness

Largely operational with no concept-teaching padding, but minor trimmable material exists: sub-use-case emphasis is repeated across the routing table, Phase 3 query patterns, and Phase 6 strategy bullets, and meta-lines like 'It **refuses to be a bucket**' and 'Locked verbatim per PR #657 audit' add tokens without executable value. Fits anchor 4 (efficient with minor over-explanation); not 5 because several sections could be tightened, not 3 because there is no generic explanation of things Claude already knows.

Actionability

Mostly executable: copy-paste commands for the router ('python scripts/sub_use_case_router.py --sub-use-case novelty ...'), family resolver, and zip-integrity validation, plus concrete source URLs, query counts, and styling hex codes. Not 5 because the core deliverable step — DOCX generation — has no code ('Via Node.js + docx library') and relevance scoring in Phase 4 lacks a concrete method beyond 'overlap of claim language with Q1 terminology'.

Workflow Clarity

Seven phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation and feedback loops: a stop condition ('Never re-open intake after Phase 2 begins'), a retry policy (wait 3s, retry once, halt after 3 consecutive failures), deliver-phase validation ('check zip integrity with ... then confirm the required sections are present'), a JSON fallback if DOCX generation fails, and an anti-patterns checklist. Matches anchor 5; not 4 because checkpoints are explicit, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

All three references (sub_use_case_routing.md, cpc_classification_canon.md, legal_disclaimer_discipline.md) and all three scripts exist, are clearly signaled with descriptive one-line summaries, and are one level deep. Not 5 because large blocks that could live in references — the full intake question scripts, per-sub-use-case query patterns, and DOCX section/styling specs — are inlined in SKILL.md, leaving minor organization gaps; not 3 because the structure and navigation are genuinely good.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: 'Commits to one of five sub-use-cases via forcing intake', 'Searches Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO, and optionally Lens.org for citation-graph signals', and a fully enumerated DOCX output ('verdict, ranked closest art (claim-text extracted), CPC-class-aware landscape, family-resolved hits, geographic coverage, FTO flags... strategy recommendations, and full audit log'). Matches the anchor-5 example's comprehensiveness; not 4 because there are no coverage gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (multi-source patent search producing a structured .docx deliverable) and when ('Use when the user asks for patent searching or analysis (e.g., 'prior art search for [invention]', 'freedom to operate analysis for [product]')') with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and specific rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms and concrete example phrases: 'patent searching or analysis', "'prior art search for [invention]'", "'freedom to operate analysis for [product]'", plus all five sub-use-case names (novelty search, freedom-to-operate, competitive landscape, acquisition diligence, litigation prior-art). Not 4 because the common variations users would actually say are explicitly present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with minimal conflict risk: 'not generic patent help' plus explicit exclusions 'Trademark, copyright, and trade-secret questions are out of scope' fence off adjacent IP skills, and the legal-advice boundary ('search signal, not legal advice') further sharpens the niche. Not 4 because overlap risk with related skills is explicitly addressed rather than merely minor.