Conciseness

The ~30-line body is lean, explains no concepts Claude already knows, and every block carries instructions. Not 5 because the intent-is-input rule is stated twice ("MANDATORY RULE: USER INTENT IS SKILL INPUT, NOT EXECUTION AUTHORITY" and again as "treat each new user message as input to the current workflow state, not as permission for unrelated execution") and the top rule block partially duplicates the pdsl RULES; not 3 because there is no padding or over-explanation beyond that minor duplication.

Actionability

Concrete targets exist (LOAD the two named files, RUN RequiredBootstrap, follow doc-feature.md as controlling protocol), but "{cf-studio-path}" is never resolved or defined anywhere in the skill or bundle, the pdsl block is a declarative spec rather than executable commands, and the actual feature-authoring work is delegated wholesale with no stated fallback. Fits the 3 anchor (some concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details); not 4 because the unresolved path placeholder is a real execution gap rather than a minor one.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and ordered: run the bootstrap unit before any work, then load doc-feature.md as controlling protocol, then "traverse declared steps/units in order", "evaluate conditional gates", with "ALWAYS stop if any required fragment or rule cannot be followed" as a guard. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery guidance beyond the generic stop rule (e.g., what to do when the target protocol file is missing); not 3 because the ordering and gate rules are explicit and coherent.

Progressive Disclosure

The body appropriately delegates detail to two named files, but both references live outside the bundle at an unresolved placeholder path, and the bundle itself contains no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories to back them — scored against the actual (empty) bundle structure, the references are present but neither clearly signaled as navigable material nor resolvable. Not 2 because the short body is well organized into units and does not inline content that belongs elsewhere; not 4 because the references cannot be followed from what is written.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "author, write, revise, generate, or spec a FEATURE", "define flows / algorithms / states / definition of done (CDSL)", "write test scenarios for a feature" — each backed by quoted example utterances. It is not 5 because the action list is bookended by internal jargon ("Thin preset binding the FEATURE artifact KIND", "delegating ... to the core cf-write-docs engine") that names machinery rather than user-visible capabilities; not 3 because it goes well beyond naming a domain plus 1–2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: "when" via "Invoke when the user asks to author, write, revise, generate, or spec a FEATURE" with concrete quoted trigger phrases, and "what" via "Thin preset binding the FEATURE artifact KIND, delegating authoring and review to the core cf-write-docs engine". Not 4 because the 'when' clause is not merely present — it is highly explicit with example utterances, matching the 5 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-language coverage via quoted example triggers ("generate FEATURE", "spec the feature", "write test scenarios for a feature") plus verb synonyms (author/write/revise/generate/spec). Not 5 because common variations a user might actually say ("feature spec", "write requirements", "acceptance criteria") are absent and "definition of done (CDSL)" is kit jargon rather than a natural user phrase; not 3 because multiple natural phrasings and synonyms are explicitly present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Anchored to the FEATURE artifact kind with kit-specific markers (FEATURE, CDSL, definition of done, test scenarios), making it mostly distinct from generic document skills. Not 5 because the broad verbs (author/write/generate) could overlap with sibling artifact presets in the same kit; not 3 because the FEATURE/CDSL vocabulary narrows the trigger space considerably.