Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient domain-specific rules with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but it could be tightened: Unknown-handling rules are restated across Step 2, Step 3, and Scoring Configuration; 'a missing reference never blocks execution' appears twice; and the single-paragraph 'Format and scoring boundaries' section packs many caveats into one dense block. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the minor-trimming of a 4.

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: an exact CSV header row, copy-paste-ready SQL DDL and index, a complete JSON Schema, a full Notion property mapping table, a single-source Field Reference table, and a worked example dialogue. Minor gaps — SQL placeholders such as '<confirmed options>' and '<int type>', and deliberately unresolved scoring inputs — keep it below 'fully executable, common cases covered' at 5.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced (identify intent → ask only what is missing → hold internal context → recommend smallest workflow → build only on request) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Validate before replying, then check cross-format consistency: same field names, same spelling, same order, same required set') and an explicit error-recovery loop ('return the error in one line naming the field or format that failed, emit the artifacts that did succeed, and say which one is missing'). The skill emits templates rather than performing destructive or batch operations, so no workflow-clarity cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The single SKILL.md has no bundle files and is well-organized into clearly headed sections with a one-level-deep reference model: the Notion step is explicitly routed to @notion-manual-import and related skills plus the catalog are clearly signaled as informational-only. Minor gaps — the ~460-line body inlines full format examples and the dense 'Format and scoring boundaries' closing paragraph is hard to navigate — fit 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' rather than the mis-organization of a 3.

Specificity

The description names the domain and lists several concrete elements — fields (reviewer, subject, review cycle, visibility, due date, score) and output formats (CSV, SQL, JSON Schema, Notion) — but does not comprehensively enumerate the skill's actions, so it fits 'several specific actions with minor gaps' rather than the comprehensive anchor.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: the 'what' is a 360 feedback register with named fields delivered as specific formats, and the 'when' is a concrete trigger clause ('Use for 360 reviews or peer feedback cycles'), matching the anchor that clearly answers both with concrete trigger phrases. The when-clause is specific rather than generic, so it sits above the 4 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say — '360 feedback', '360 reviews', 'peer feedback cycles' — are present, but common variations such as 'peer review', 'performance feedback', or 'feedback cycle' synonyms are missing, matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of a 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 360-feedback niche is clear with distinct triggers and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, but the broad 'feedback' trigger could overlap with closely related HR/people-ops register modules in the same ecosystem, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the minimal-conflict 5.