Conciseness

The core methodology (temporal precision table, ❌/✅ query patterns, diversity table) earns its place, but sections like "When to Use web_fetch" (obvious guidance), "Iterative Refinement" (research-is-iterative is knowledge Claude already has), and "Output" (restates the Quality Bar) are unnecessary or redundant. Mostly efficient with some explanation that could be tightened, matching the 3 anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, directly usable guidance throughout: example queries ("AI radiology FDA approved systems"), ❌/✅ query comparisons, a diversity table with example searches, and a synthesis checklist. Some directives like "Identify Dimensions" and "Map the Territory" remain abstract without worked detail, keeping it below the fully-executable 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

Four clearly sequenced phases with an explicit validation checkpoint (the Phase 4 checklist gated "Before proceeding to content generation"), a feedback loop ("Review what you've learned / Identify gaps / Formulate new queries / Repeat"), and error-recovery guidance ("Investigate material evidence gaps... disclose unresolved limits"). This matches the 5 anchor's explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-organized file with clear section headers, tables, and no nested or buried references (no bundle files exist to reference). At roughly 190 lines, extended material like the worked examples and temporal table could arguably be split into reference files, so it fits "good structure, minor organization gaps" rather than the 5 anchor's appropriately-split content.

Specificity

Phrases like "source comparison" and "synthesis across several dimensions" name the domain and a couple of actions, but the actions are abstract (no concrete operations such as "conducts multi-phase web searches with source validation"). It lists domain plus 1-2 actions without comprehensive concrete coverage, matching the 3 anchor rather than the 4 anchor's "several specific actions".

Completeness

An explicit trigger clause is present ("Use for substantial investigations needing...") and the what is stated ("Scale research to the question and requested depth"), so both what and when exist. Not 5 because the when lacks concrete trigger phrases users would say (e.g. "research X", "investigate X"); not 3 because both elements are explicitly present.

Trigger Term Quality

"substantial investigations", "current evidence", and "research" are relevant natural keywords, but common variations users actually say ("deep dive", "investigate X", "look into", "fact-check") are missing. Coverage is moderate rather than good-with-few-missing, fitting the 3 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Qualifiers like "substantial", "current evidence", "source comparison", and "synthesis across several dimensions" carve a niche clearly above simple lookup, distinguishing it from a quick-search skill. Minor overlap risk with a generic web-search skill remains, so it fits "mostly distinct" rather than the 5 anchor's minimal conflict risk.