Conciseness

The body is prescriptive and lean — it never explains concepts Claude already knows and uses tight, directive prose ("No function signatures, no wire-format dumps... Stop and pull back to behavior and rationale"). Minor redundancy keeps it from anchor 5: the no-implementation-details rule is stated three times ("What an FDR Is NOT", "Writing Style", "Verification Checklist") and checklist items restate workflow steps.

Actionability

Everything is executable for an instruction-only skill: an exact file-naming pattern (FDR-{NNN}-{kebab-case-slug}.md), a complete copy-paste markdown template with per-section guidance, enumerated status values with when to use each, a concrete TOC table format, and numbered step-by-step procedures for every mode. This matches anchor 5's fully concrete, copy-paste-ready bar.

Workflow Clarity

Create, update, retire, and audit workflows are each clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: the audit process verifies every claim category (gates, behavioral claims, design decisions, related records), returns a structured report (Verified/Discrepancies/Stale/Missing), and only applies updates with user approval. A verification checklist and parallel-audit guidance round out anchor 5's explicit validation and feedback-loop criteria.

Progressive Disclosure

The single SKILL.md is well organized with clear sections and no buried or nested references, and no bundle files exist to evaluate. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because at ~215 lines some self-contained material (the FDR template plus status values, and the TOC format) could be split into a reference file, though nothing is misfiled or hard to navigate.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Feature Decision Records (FDRs)") and one concrete action ("Keep track of product or project features") with what each document captures ("behavior, design decisions, and rationale"), but it does not enumerate the skill's actual capabilities (create, update, audit FDRs). This matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions) rather than anchor 4, which expects several specific listed actions.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (keep track of features as structured per-feature documents capturing behavior, decisions, rationale), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not score 2 because the "what" half is specific and concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "features", "product", "design decisions", "rationale", and "FDRs" give good keyword coverage a user would plausibly say. It falls short of anchor 5 because common phrasings such as "feature documentation", "document a feature", or "feature docs" are absent, but it is well above anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Feature Decision Records (FDRs)" is a clear niche with distinct terminology, making accidental triggering by generic documentation requests unlikely. Minor overlap risk remains with ADR/architecture-doc skills, which the description does not explicitly distinguish, so anchor 4 fits better than anchor 5.