Conciseness

The body is short and mostly efficient, with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the six repetitive trigger bullets ('...ou related topics' repeated verbatim) and filler bullets like 'The task is unrelated to advogado criminal' are padding that could be condensed; not 3 because there is no unnecessary explanation beyond that.

Actionability

The only executable instruction in the body is the pointer 'Read [the detailed guide](references/detailed-guide.md) before executing this skill'; all specific steps for the actual research task live in the referenced file. This matches the anchor 'Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'. Not 3 because the body itself offers no domain-level concrete guidance beyond navigation; not 1 because the pointer is concrete, the target file exists, and the limitations give a concrete behavioral rule ('Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs... are missing').

Workflow Clarity

A rough two-step sequence is present (read the guide, then execute, treating 'its safety, prerequisites, and validation requirements as mandatory'), but validation checkpoints are only referenced abstractly and the actual multi-step case-analysis workflow is entirely deferred to the reference. Matches 'Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'. Not 4 because no concrete checkpoint is specified in the body; not 2 because the read-then-execute sequence is unambiguous and explicitly sequencing.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear, well-organized overview that points to exactly one reference (references/detailed-guide.md, verified to exist), one level deep, clearly signaled, with guidance on how to load it ('For focused work, load the relevant sections; for end-to-end work, read the guide completely'). The reference contains no nested file references. Not 4 because there are no organization gaps in the body: sections are well-ordered and the reference is appropriately placed.

Specificity

The description names the domain richly ('em Maria da Penha, violencia domestica, feminicidio, direito penal brasileiro, medidas protetivas, inquerito policial e acao penal') but the only stated action is the generic 'Assistente de pesquisa informativa', comparable to the anchor 'Processes PDF files'. It is not score 3 because no concrete second action or capability detail is listed, and not score 1 because the domain and one action (informational research, without professional credentials) are explicitly stated.

Completeness

There is a reasonably clear 'what' ('Assistente de pesquisa informativa, sem credenciais profissionais' on the listed topics), but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely under-specified; not 2 because the 'what' is present and clear.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'Maria da Penha', 'violencia domestica', 'feminicidio', 'medidas protetivas', 'inquerito policial' are exactly the natural phrases a Brazilian user would say. Not 5 because common synonyms and identifiers are missing (e.g., 'Lei 11.340', 'violencia de genero', 'crimes contra a mulher'); not 3 because coverage of natural domain terms is good, not partial.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and mostly distinct ('Maria da Penha', 'feminicidio', 'medidas protetivas' are highly specific triggers), but the broad term 'direito penal brasileiro' creates minor overlap risk with any general Brazilian-law research skill. Not 5 because of that broad overlap term; not 3 because the core triggers are far more specific than the anchor 'Works with document files'.