Conciseness

The core workflow, depth tables, and anti-patterns are efficient and earn their tokens, but the ending is stated three times — Step 6's 'Then STOP. Do not take any further actions', the entire '## STOP — Phase Complete' section, and the '## After Research' section all restate the same termination and /clear → /draft handoff. The 'Context Compaction' section also partially re-explains the Purpose rationale; tightening these would lift it to 4-5.

Actionability

Highly actionable throughout: a concrete dispatch example ('Add discount codes to orders'), exact artifact path pattern ('docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-{topic}-research.md'), explicit tool usage ('TaskOutput block: false/true'), a verbatim copy-paste Step 6 output block, and links to real reference files. Not a 5 because the Task dispatch snippet ('Task(Explore): "..."') is illustrative pseudo-syntax rather than literal tool invocations, and agent counts are given as ranges.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly numbered, sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints: a REQUIRED user-review step with an edit→re-ask feedback loop ('Repeat until the user approves'), thin-results handling guidance in Step 3, an explicit stop condition, and an anti-patterns checklist. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of clear sequence with explicit validation and error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a workflow overview that appropriately delegates detail to two real, one-level-deep, clearly signaled references — [agent prompts](references/agent-prompts.md) for full Task prompt templates and [research artifact template](references/template.md) for the output format. Both files exist, are linked with descriptive context, and no content that belongs in a separate file is inlined.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'Spawns parallel subagents for codebase exploration AND web/pattern research', 'synthesizes findings for user review', 'Produces compact research artifact' — with only minor gaps in coverage. Not a 5 because 'Research phase of RPI methodology' leads with undefined jargon and the action list, while good, is not fully comprehensive.

Completeness

Both questions are answered: the 'what' is concrete (spawns subagents, explores codebase and web, synthesizes, produces artifact) and the 'when' is explicit ('Use at the start of non-trivial features'). Not a 5 because the 'when' is a single general clause rather than concrete trigger phrases like 'when the user mentions X' — matching anchor 4 ('when' could be more specific).

Trigger Term Quality

Contains good natural keywords ('Research', 'codebase exploration', 'web/pattern research', 'non-trivial features') that users would plausibly say. A few natural terms are missing (e.g., 'investigate', 'look into', 'explore'), keeping it below the comprehensive-synonyms anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to 'Research phase of RPI methodology' with parallel-subagent orchestration, making it mostly distinct from generic skills. Minor overlap risk remains with plain 'research this topic' requests, which the body itself acknowledges ('Pure research tasks (use Explore agent instead)').