Conciseness

The 5-step workflow is restated nearly verbatim three times (Overview list, per-step sections, Quick Reference table), e.g., 'Find best practices, recent information' vs 'Search for best practices, recent blog posts, community knowledge'. Not score 2 because there is no padding with concepts Claude already knows, and not score 4 because the triple repetition is avoidable over-explanation that could be consolidated into one listing.

Actionability

Steps are one-line high-level directions ('Search for best practices, recent blog posts, community knowledge') with no example search queries, no format for recording findings per step, and no synthesis document template; the only concrete artifact is 'research-synthesis.md with 3-5 sources'. Not score 3 because there is no partially-executable guidance like pseudocode or concrete sub-steps, and not score 1 because the step outputs and result artifact are named.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step sequence is clearly ordered with time budgets and the optional step explicitly flagged, but validation checkpoints are absent (e.g., a source-credibility or minimum-source check before synthesis). Not score 4 because checkpoints are entirely missing rather than having minor gaps, and not score 2 because the sequence itself is coherent, well-sequenced, and includes outputs per step.

Progressive Disclosure

A single, well-organized file with clear section headers, a summary table, and no nested or buried references; no bundle files exist, and the short content does not need external files. Not score 5 because the redundancy across Overview, step sections, and Quick Reference indicates organization could be tighter and the 'Use in: development-workflow Step 1' cross-reference is unlinked, and not score 3 because structure and navigation are genuinely good.

Specificity

The description enumerates several concrete actions in sequence ('web search through GitHub exploration and documentation analysis to research synthesis'), but the actions are named sources rather than concrete capabilities, leaving minor gaps in coverage. It is not score 5 because the actions lack the comprehensiveness and concreteness of the top anchor, and not score 3 because it clearly lists multiple specific operations rather than just 1-2.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('orchestrating multi-source research operations... from web search through GitHub exploration and documentation analysis to research synthesis') and when ('Use when researching new domains, gathering patterns, investigating technologies...') with concrete trigger phrases. Not score 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific, meeting the top anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

'researching new domains, gathering patterns, investigating technologies' are natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage. It is not score 5 because common variations and synonyms (e.g., 'look up', 'find best practices', 'explore a codebase') are missing, and not score 3 because the included terms are natural and relevant rather than partially missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill is scoped to research for skill development, but trigger phrases like 'gathering patterns, investigating technologies' are broad and overlap with general web-search or research skills. Not score 4 because the overlap risk extends beyond closely related skills, and not score 2 because the multi-source workflow framing gives it some distinct identity.