Conciseness

The ~875-line body repeatedly explains concepts Claude already knows ("Use active voice", "Exact numbers, not ranges", defining what makes a task clear) and restates its core content three times across the workflow steps, the Best Practices/Common Mistakes sections, and the Quick Reference. Concrete templates do earn some value, but the padding and duplication are extensive, fitting the 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' anchor rather than the 'severely verbose' anchor 1.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill, the guidance is largely executable: a fill-in task definition template, a six-part prompt structure, four scenario templates (workflow step, task operation, analysis, creation), good/bad example pairs, and a real validation script (scripts/validate-prompt.py exists). Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5 — the nested code fence in the 'Examples' template section is malformed (the inner triple backticks prematurely close the block), and the templates remain unfilled skeletons without one complete worked prompt.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit '→ Output' and '→ Next' transitions at every step, culminating in a dedicated Refine & Validate step with a numeric quality target (all dimensions ≥4), checklists, testing strategies including iteration, and an issue→fix recovery table — matching the anchor's clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists. No destructive or batch operations apply, so no cap is triggered.

Progressive Disclosure

The bundle structure is real and one level deep (references/prompt-engineering-principles.md, prompt-templates.md, prompt-examples.md, scripts/validate-prompt.py all exist), but the body signals them only generically ("see the references/ directory") without per-topic links, and roughly 600 lines of principles, patterns, and examples that duplicate the reference files are inlined in SKILL.md. This matches the anchor for 'references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline'.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Build effective prompts for Claude Code skills") and its methods ("using engineering principles, templates, and validation"), but the actions are generic build/create verbs rather than a list of several distinct concrete capabilities, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor. It falls below anchor 4 because it does not enumerate multiple specific actions with only minor gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is concrete ("Creates clear, specific, actionable prompts using engineering principles, templates, and validation") and the 'when' is an explicit trigger clause with concrete phrases ("Use when creating skill instructions, workflow steps, task operations, or any Claude prompt"), mirroring the anchor-5 example structure. Voice is third-person/ imperative throughout, so no penalty applies.

Trigger Term Quality

It covers good natural trigger terms — "skill instructions", "workflow steps", "task operations", "any Claude prompt" — that users would plausibly say. It stays below anchor 5 because common variations like "improve prompts", "rewrite prompts", or "prompt engineering" are absent (the body's When-to-Use list even includes 'Improving existing prompts', which the description omits).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The prompt-building niche is mostly distinct with a clear purpose, but the tail clause "or any Claude prompt" broadens the trigger surface to overlap with any general prompt-writing or prompt-improvement skill. Minor overlap risk with closely related skills fits anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.