Conciseness

The body avoids explaining known concepts and is sectioned, but the authorization/non-approval logic is repeated four times (Non-Negotiable Rules, Interaction Rules items 4-7, the deepening section, and the pseudoflow), and the pseudoflow restates the Step 1-4 sequence verbatim. Mostly efficient but could be tightened by stating the authorization rules once, which keeps it below 4.

Actionability

The kickoff phase is genuinely concrete ('Run one web_search call with 2-3 queries in parallel... (e.g. "what is X" + "X current debates" + "X use cases")', exact ask_user question structure, timeout policy), but the execution phase is entirely delegated to 'reference/research-workflow.md' and the deliverable to 'reference/report-template.html' — neither file exists in the bundle, so 'execute full workflow' and 'follow template rules' cannot actually be executed. Some concrete, incomplete guidance matches the 3 anchor rather than 4.

Workflow Clarity

The pre-execution sequence (pre-search -> plan draft -> ask_user kickoff -> continue from answer) is clearly ordered with explicit authorization checkpoints, and the deepening mode has its own flow. However, the sequence after approval is a black box ('execute full workflow', 'Phase 6's gap diagnosis') pointing at a missing reference file, leaving key steps undefined — a present-but-gapped sequence, hence 3 rather than 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The 'References (Read On Demand)' section is well designed — two files, one level deep, each mapped to a condition — but neither 'reference/research-workflow.md' nor 'reference/report-template.html' exists in the bundle (no reference/, references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present). Scored against the actual bundle structure, both referenced paths are dead, so the on-demand content the whole skill depends on is undeliverable; the signaling is good but the disclosure chain is broken, which lands at 2 rather than 3.

Specificity

The domain is clearly named (research reports, deep research, whitepapers) and 'multi-source retrieval and cross-validation' are concrete actions, but they are framed as conditions on the topic ('the topic requires multi-source retrieval and cross-validation') rather than the skill's own capabilities. It does not reach 4 because the skill's actions (plan, retrieve, cross-validate, write up) are never enumerated as what the skill does; it stays above 2 because the language is more concrete than bare domain naming.

Completeness

Both halves are present: the 'when' is maximally explicit ('Trigger when: (1)... (2)... (3)...' plus a 'Skip when' clause) with concrete trigger phrases, and the 'what' is derivable from 'the user wants to produce a formal report or research document as the deliverable'. It does not reach 5 because the description never explicitly states what the skill itself does (e.g., 'plans, retrieves, cross-validates, and writes up research into an HTML report') — the capability side is implied through user-side framing.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms and variants: 'research, deep research, deep dive, analysis, investigate, report, survey, industry analysis, competitive analysis, market analysis' plus deliverable names like 'whitepaper' and 'landscape survey' — these are phrases users would actually say. Only marginal terms (e.g., 'literature review', 'fact-check') are absent, so it does not fall to 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear deep-research niche with distinctive triggers (deep research, whitepaper, landscape survey, competitive analysis) and an explicit skip clause ('Skip when a single search or model recall suffices') that delineates it from plain search skills. Not 5 because standalone broad keyword signals like 'analysis' and 'report' create minor overlap risk with generic data-analysis or writing skills.