Conciseness

Overall efficient — dense tables, guardrails, and templates with little concept-explanation Claude already knows — but the Mode 3 section duplicates the reference file's contents in seven summary bullets, "Don't invent personas" is stated twice in consecutive paragraphs, and the 40-line persona template could arguably live in a reference file. Fits anchor 4 (minor instances that could be trimmed) better than 3, since the padding is localized rather than pervasive.

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready synthesis and persona templates, specific numeric criteria ("$50/call, $5/survey; aim for 10 calls," the "40% 'very disappointed'" benchmark, "fewer than 5 independent data points"), and concrete worked micro-examples ("'We were drowning in spreadsheets' > 'manual process inefficiency'"). For an instruction-only skill this is fully executable guidance covering the common cases, matching anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced ("Mine what's already public (Mode 2) before you ask (Mode 3)"; numbered extraction and synthesis steps) with explicit validation checkpoints (confidence labeling "before presenting it," minimum viable sample, sample bias checks, recency window), conflict-resolution guidance ("weight it above scraped sources when they conflict"), and checklists (extraction framework, field-capture table, pre-proceeding questions). This matches anchor 5's requirement of explicit validation steps and checklists for complex processes.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview that clearly signals two one-level-deep references ("read `references/interviews-and-surveys.md`" and "read `references/source-guides.md` for detailed playbooks, search operators"), both verified to exist as substantive files, each introduced with a preview of its contents. Bulk detail is appropriately split out and navigation is easy, matching anchor 5.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "analyzing existing research assets, mining online sources, AND running primary research (interviews and surveys)" — but persona/JTBD outputs appear only as trigger terms rather than stated capabilities, leaving minor gaps in coverage. Not 5 because the opening "conduct, analyze, or synthesize customer research" is generic and the full action inventory is not comprehensive; clearly above 3, which covers only 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("analyzing existing research assets, mining online sources, AND running primary research") and when ("Use when the user mentions…" followed by concrete trigger phrases), mirroring the anchor-5 example structure. A 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which is not the case here.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-language coverage including synonyms and acronyms: "customer research," "talk to customers," "voice of customer," "VOC," "jobs to be done," "JTBD," "Reddit mining," "G2 reviews," "Sales Safari," "PMF survey," and "find out why customers churn/convert/buy." Matches the anchor-5 standard of full synonym coverage; nothing below 5 is warranted given the breadth of phrases users would actually say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers and explicit deconfliction to adjacent skills ("For writing copy informed by research, see copywriting. For acting on research to improve pages, see cro."), minimizing wrong-skill triggering. Overlap terms like "competitor reviews" are present but the boundary routing keeps conflict risk minimal, fitting anchor 5 rather than 4.