Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence — no basic-concept explanations, and domain framing is compressed to single clauses ('opportunities are needs not features (O2)'). However, a few spots could be trimmed without loss: 'Modern discovery is a weekly habit, not a project phase (Torres)' is rationale Claude can infer from the canon reference, the 16-row symptom table partially duplicates the description's sub-skill inventory, and the six forcing questions each carry full canon citations that could be shortened. This lands on anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed') rather than 5, where every token would earn its place.

Actionability

Commands are fully executable and copy-paste ready with all flags specified: `python3 scripts/product_goal_router.py --text "<the goal>" --output json`, `python3 scripts/discovery_cadence_tracker.py --input discovery_log.json`, `python3 scripts/ost_linter.py --input ost.json`, and the goal_compiler invocation with its full --manifest path. Exit-code semantics for every branch are given (exit 0/2/3 for the router, exit 5 refusal, 'exit 2 = NEEDS-REWORK, fix before citing the tree'), and the sample shapes are pointed to via `assets/sample_discovery_log.json`. All in-bundle script paths were verified to exist. This matches anchor 5 ('fully executable; copy-paste ready commands; specific examples cover the common cases').

Workflow Clarity

The routing workflow has an explicit decision table driven by exit codes (exit 0 → load named skill; exit 2 → ask one clarifying question with recommended answer; exit 3 → ask for restatement), and the discovery loop is a clear 5-step sequence (Observe → Choose → Act → Verify → Record/Repeat-or-stop) whose validation checkpoints are machine gates with defined failure handling and stop states ('DORMANT for 4+ weeks → escalate... by name', 'HEALTHY + validated assumption → graduate to experiment-designer'). Error-recovery feedback loops are explicit throughout — a direct match for the anchor-5 example pattern (validate → fix → only-when-valid proceed).

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a clean overview that splits detail appropriately: three reference files are each linked inline with purpose and listed in a References section with one-line descriptions ('continuous_discovery_canon.md — Torres, OST, assumption testing, JTBD switch interviews, story mapping'), the three scripts in scripts/ are invoked directly, and sample data shapes live in assets/. All referenced in-bundle paths were verified to exist and are exactly one level deep — no nesting, no buried references. This matches anchor 5 ('clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation').

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the orchestrator's scope: 'Forks context to route to one sub-skill via a deterministic signal router and returns a digest', 'drive a continuous-discovery loop (Torres cadence tracker + OST linter as machine gates)', and 'a full goal→plan→execute→verify→close run through the repo-wide agent-harness'. This matches the anchor-5 example's structure (multiple concrete actions, comprehensive for the domain); anchor 4 would require minor coverage gaps, and none are evident — routing, digesting, looping, and harness runs are all named.

Completeness

Both 'what' and 'when' are explicitly and concretely answered: 'Use when coordinating product work across the 12 bundled product sub-skills... or the 4 standalone product-team plugins' (when, with explicit trigger phrases) and the routing/digest/loop/harness-run capabilities (what). This is a textbook match for anchor 5 ('Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'); a 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

It provides comprehensive natural trigger phrases a user would actually say: "Triggers on 'help me prioritize', 'plan a product experiment', 'we ship features nobody uses', 'run the discovery loop', 'is our OST sound'", plus a broad synonym inventory (RICE, OKRs, UX research, design tokens, competitive teardown, analytics, experiments, discovery, roadmaps, spec-to-repo, landing pages, SaaS scaffolding). This exceeds anchor 4 ('a few natural terms missing') — both natural phrasings and domain synonyms are covered; 'is our OST sound' is niche jargon but is supplemented by four plainly natural phrases.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description ends with an explicit disambiguation clause: 'Distinct from project-management (how to deliver vs what to build), marketing/landing (from-scratch pages), and engineering/agent-harness (the generic loop engine this orchestrator plugs into)'. It carves out a clear niche (product-domain orchestration) with minimal conflict risk against the named adjacent skills — a stronger fit for anchor 5 than anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills', since the overlapping skills are explicitly distinguished rather than merely avoided.