Conciseness

Mostly efficient and operational, but the distinct-from information is repeated three ways (in the description, the 'Do NOT use' bullet, and the 'Distinct from' table) and the forcing-question library carries recommended-answer plus canon-citation padding per item, so it could be tightened — matching the score-3 anchor over the score-4 anchor which requires only minor trims.

Actionability

Provides concrete, flag-level CLI commands with example values ('study_designer.py --goal {discovery|evaluative|validation} --stage ... --profile ...', 'insight_synthesizer.py --input observations.json --min-sources 3') plus quick `--sample` examples; the minor gap is that the referenced scripts are not present in the bundle, so commands are not actually runnable as-is — matching score-4 rather than the fully-executable score-5.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with per-step commands and an explicit checkpoint in step 4 (treat ANECDOTE-flagged clusters as signals, not findings) and a redirect-honoring check in step 2; it falls short of score-5 only because there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, fitting the score-4 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and signals one-level-deep references (References list, Scripts table, assets/research_plan_template.md), but the references/, scripts/, and assets/ directories do not exist in the bundle, so the referenced paths are broken navigation — fitting the score-3 anchor (references present but navigation not actually usable) rather than score-4/5 which require working file structure.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation)', 'computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level', 'synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes' — with comprehensive coverage, matching the score-5 anchor.

Completeness

Opens with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause and states concrete 'what' actions (method selection, saturation sizing, insight synthesis), clearly and explicitly answering both what and when with trigger phrases, matching the score-5 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural research terms a user would say — 'product/user research', 'generative interviews', 'usability test', 'concept test', 'saturation/sample size', 'confidence level', 'coded observations', 'insights', 'anecdotes' — including synonyms; no file extensions apply to this method skill, so the score-5 anchor fits.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

An explicit 'Distinct from' clause names neighbors — ux-researcher-designer, product-discovery, experiment-designer — and carves a clear 'research-ops method + insight-repository layer' niche, giving minimal conflict risk per the score-5 anchor.