Conciseness

The body is a lean 8-step imperative list with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every line instructs ("Read the controlling plan or specification first", "Verify load-bearing claims against source before accepting them"). This matches 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'. Not a 4 because there is nothing to trim.

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable for an instruction-only skill: concrete filtering criteria ("Drop style preferences and 'a different design would also work'", "Trace a call site before you accept a bug claim"), named synthesis categories ("Fix before change / Fix now / Follow-up / No action"), and a specific output location ("active `.plans/<task>.md`"). Minor gaps keep it at 4: "Build one evidence package" and "Select representative users plus specialists" give no example format or selection method. Not a 3 because the guidance is specific and directive, not pseudocode or high-level hints; not a 5 because a few steps lack concrete examples.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 8-step sequence with validation checkpoints — step 5 ("Verify load-bearing claims against source before accepting them") and step 6's filtering gate with per-finding justification ("Put each dropped finding under No action with one reason"). Not a 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery/feedback loop (e.g. what to do when a reviewer claim fails verification beyond dropping it); not a 3 because checkpoints are present and explicit, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references — the body is a single well-organized numbered procedure with a clear heading, and no bundle files exist or are needed. Per the simple-skill guideline this matches the top anchor for a self-contained, well-organized skill.

Specificity

The description names the domain clearly ("Fallow design, plan, workflow, CLI surface, documentation architecture, or user experience") and one concrete action ("Review ... with representative end-user and domain-expert perspectives"), but relies on a single verb with no enumeration of concrete capabilities, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor. It is not a 4 because it does not list several specific actions; it is not a 2 because the domain is named and the action is concrete, not generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (review artifacts with representative user/expert perspectives), but there is no 'Use when ...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; 'before implementation' only weakly implies timing. Per the judging guideline, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3. Not a 4 because the 'when' is not explicit, and not a 2 because the 'what' is concrete and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ("design", "plan", "workflow", "CLI surface", "documentation", "user experience", "review"), but common natural variations users would say are missing — e.g. "feedback", "critique", "spec review", "design review", "panel", "stakeholders" — matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. Not a 4 because a user asking for a critique or stakeholder feedback on a design would not naturally hit these terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The phrase "Review a Fallow design, plan, workflow, CLI surface, documentation architecture, or user experience with representative end-user and domain-expert perspectives" carves out a distinct review/panel niche with a characteristic method (representative perspectives), so it is 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' — it could still collide with generic code-review or design-critique skills. Not a 5 because the trigger surface is broad (plans, workflows, docs, UX) and no unique trigger phrase sharply separates it.