Conciseness

The body is mostly dense, structured templates with no concept tutorials, but it includes unnecessary material: the anti-rationalization table ("'I already know the best approach' | You know ONE approach..."), the SCAMPER letter expansion Claude already knows, and a Verification Protocol that restates the per-step BLOCKED conditions ("At least 3 alternatives were generated with pros/cons"). This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than 4, where padding would be only minor.

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete: copy-paste-ready question scripts ("When you say 'fast', what response time is acceptable?"), worked example values ("< 200ms p95 response time", "10k concurrent users", matrix scores "7.05/7.35/6.55"), and explicit integration conditionals ("IF @planner classifies task as COMPLEX"). Not 5 because many output templates remain pure placeholders ([desc], [list]) with no worked end-to-end example and a few directives stay abstract ("Map the domain - Identify entities, relationships, boundaries").

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation gates at every step ("BLOCKED until problem space is understood", "BLOCKED until at least 5 assumptions are identified and tested", "BLOCKED until 3+ alternatives with pros/cons exist"), user feedback loops ("Section 1: Problem & scope (approve?)"), and a closing Verification Protocol checklist. Checkpoints are explicit at every step with feedback loops and a checklist, matching anchor 5 rather than 4.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so everything is inline in a ~290-line single file. Sections are well-organized with clear per-step headers, but large step-specific lookup material (the ideation-frameworks table, anti-rationalization table, and output templates) is inlined rather than split into one-level-deep reference files. This fits anchor 3 (some structure, could be better organized) rather than 4, since a body well over 50 lines keeps all reference-worthy content inline.

Specificity

The description never states what the skill does — phrases like "starting a complex feature", "exploring unclear requirements", and "needing to challenge assumptions" are user trigger scenarios, not skill capabilities. It names the brainstorming/design domain with several specific trigger phrases, fitting anchor 2 rather than 3 (no concrete skill actions listed) or 1 (not pure abstraction).

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present without any 'what' — the description never says the skill refines ideas through questioning, tests assumptions, or generates alternatives. This matches anchor 2 ("only 'when' is present without 'what'") exactly; not 3 because no capability statement exists, not 1 because the 'when' clause is concrete and multi-triggered rather than extremely vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("complex feature", "unclear requirements", "challenge assumptions", "before /plan") but the most natural term a user would say — "brainstorm" itself — plus synonyms like "explore options" or "weigh alternatives" are missing. This matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than 4 (good coverage with only a few gaps).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "before /plan" qualifier positions the skill, but triggers like "starting a complex feature" and "exploring unclear requirements" would plausibly also fire a planning or discovery skill — the body itself integrates with @planner and /discovery. Somewhat specific with real overlap risk against closely related skills, fitting anchor 3 rather than 4.