Conciseness

The same rules are restated many times across parallel template sections: "one question at a time" appears in Control-flow features, Scene 2, Guardrail 2, Phase 2, and Pitfalls; TRIZ-lite optionality in Dependencies, Control-flow, Transitions, Failure/recovery, Guardrail 8, Phase 3, and References; and the whole workflow is repeated across Structural Flow, Canonical workflow path, and Execution Phases. This is noticeably verbose with several padded sections (anchor 2) rather than mostly efficient with incidental slack (anchor 3), though it avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete, executable instruction-only guidance: specific commands ("oma state emit" + "oma state verify --checkpoint option-selection"), a named decision ("brainstorm.option-selection"), output paths ("docs/plans/designs/"), lens counts ("4-8 independent lenses"), tier definitions, and tactical/structural labels. Not 5 because key details like how blind-review lens prompts are constructed and what the comparison matrix contains are left unspecified.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-phase sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (section-by-section approval, blind review with "resolve Tier 1 before save", state verify) and genuine feedback loops (failure/recovery: "If the user cannot answer a question, propose assumptions and ask for confirmation"; transitions for rejected approaches and early implementation pressure). This matches anchor 5 rather than 4, which only requires most checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep and clearly signaled in a References section, but none of the cited files ("resources/triz-lite.md", "../_shared/core/context-loading.md", etc.) exist in the provided bundle, and the heavily duplicated inline content is material that could be split into those files. Fits anchor 3 (some structure, references present but not verifiable/organizational improvement needed) more than 4.

Specificity

"Explore goals, constraints, and alternative approaches before choosing a design" names the design/ideation domain with 2-3 actions, but the verbs are generic and no concrete artifacts (e.g., design document, comparison matrix) are named. Not 4 because it does not list several specific actions; not 2 because the domain and multiple actions are present.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: what = "Explore goals, constraints, and alternative approaches before choosing a design"; when = "Use when the user requests ideation or design exploration". Not 5 because the "when" clause lacks concrete trigger phrases a user would actually say; not 3 because "when" is explicitly stated, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Keywords "ideation" and "design exploration" are relevant, but the most natural user phrasings ("brainstorm", "I have an idea", "compare approaches") are absent. Fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than 4, since the common synonyms are missing entirely.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"before choosing a design" and "ideation or design exploration" carve out a clear pre-planning design niche distinguishable from implementation, review, and debugging skills. Not 5 because "design" is broad and carries minor overlap risk with general design or planning skills.