Conciseness

The body is mostly tight bullet fragments, but two sections duplicate earlier content: the OST section restates 'Outcome -> opportunities -> solution ideas -> experiments' from workflow step 2, and Assumption Mapping restates the four categories already listed in step 3 (desirability, viability, feasibility, usability). This matches anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') rather than anchor 4, whose over-explanation would be only minor and trimmable.

Actionability

Guidance is largely concrete: a copy-paste CLI command ('python3 scripts/assumption_mapper.py assumptions.csv'), specific test types (fake door, concierge, concept tests), explicit quality thresholds ('at least 3 distinct opportunities', 'at least 2 experiments'), and a day-by-day sprint plan. Anchor 4 fits; it is not anchor 5 because the assumptions.csv input schema is never specified and interview guidance ('conduct interviews and behavior analysis') lacks executable detail.

Workflow Clarity

The 6-step Core Discovery Workflow is clearly sequenced with decision checkpoints ('Reject weak opportunities early', 'End with decision: proceed, pivot, or stop') and evidence thresholds acting as validation criteria. Anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gates') fits; it is not anchor 5 because checkpoints are stated but not framed as explicit validate-and-fix feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The body signals one-level-deep references ('See references/discovery-frameworks.md for framework details', 'scripts/assumption_mapper.py'), but neither the references/ nor scripts/ directory exists — every referenced path is dangling, so navigation dead-ends. Per the guideline to score against the actual bundle structure, this fits anchor 2 ('minimal structure; references are buried/broken') despite good section headers, because inlined framework detail plus nonexistent referenced files means the disclosure structure does not actually work; anchor 3 would require working but imperfectly organized references.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'validating product opportunities, mapping assumptions, planning discovery sprints, or testing problem-solution fit' — comparable to the anchor-4 example of several specific actions with minor gaps. It falls short of anchor 5 because the actions are domain activities rather than operations on concrete artifacts, and there is no standalone statement of the skill's core function.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and rich ('Use when validating... before committing delivery resources'), and the gerund list implies the 'what', matching anchor 4's 'both present; when could be more explicit or specific' — here it is the 'what' that is embedded rather than explicitly stated. It is not anchor 5 because there is no separate, explicit what-it-does clause, and not anchor 3 because the 'when' clause is strong and the 'what' is clearly derivable rather than missing.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural PM phrases users would say are well covered: 'product opportunities', 'mapping assumptions', 'discovery sprints', 'problem-solution fit'. Anchor 4 fits ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') — common synonyms like 'customer discovery', 'opportunity solution tree', or 'assumption testing' are absent, keeping it below anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Terms like 'product opportunities', 'discovery sprints', and 'problem-solution fit' carve out a distinct product-discovery niche with minimal conflict risk against unrelated skills. Anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills') fits better than anchor 5 because 'mapping assumptions' and 'planning discovery sprints' could plausibly overlap with general planning or agile/sprint skills.