Conciseness

Every section carries skill-specific information — the exact folder tree, the stub marker text, the criteria-table format, and the checkpoint format — with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. This matches the lean/efficient anchor; even the repeated first sentence is a one-line orientation, not filler.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready: an exact task folder tree, an exact stub marker string, a filled-in criteria table pairing criteria with verification methods, a checkbox checkpoint template, and a mandatory instruction to read the real template files before scaffolding. For an instruction-only skill this matches the fully executable anchor covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The Phase Flow lists six clearly sequenced phases with explicit gates ("user approves before work begins", Architecture "stub until criteria approved") plus checkbox checkpoints, which goes beyond anchor 4's "most checkpoints". It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do when verification evidence fails a criterion), so it sits between the 4 and 5 anchors.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that delegates full templates to six real, one-level-deep files in references/001-example-task/ (all verified present), clearly signaled with markdown links and a MUST-read instruction. This matches the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references and appropriate content split; patterns kept inline are the small reusable snippets that belong there.

Specificity

"Templates for objectives, acceptance criteria, architecture, prototypes, and verification" names several concrete deliverables, matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It is not 5 because "Structured approach to explore features before production development" is an abstract frame rather than enumerated actions (e.g., scaffold, document, verify), and not 3 because coverage goes well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' ("Structured approach to explore features... Templates for objectives, acceptance criteria, architecture, prototypes, and verification") and explicitly answers 'when' with concrete trigger phrases ("This skill should be used when the user asks to 'explore a feature'..."). This matches the anchor that explicitly answers both what and when with concrete trigger phrases; nothing is weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

The quoted phrases "explore a feature", "start an exploration", "create a task folder", and "exploration protocol" are natural terms a user would say, giving good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common synonyms and variations are missing (e.g., "spike", "investigate a feature", "research a task"); not 3 because the natural-phrase coverage is clearly stronger than "some relevant keywords".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The exploration-protocol/task-folder niche with distinct quoted triggers is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against generic planning or research skills. Not 5 because "explore" is a fairly common word that could collide with general exploration requests; not 3 because the quoted triggers are specific to this protocol.