Mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence (no generic explanations of what a PRD or milestone is), but the 15 template headings are enumerated twice — once as Step 4 bullets and again verbatim in the blockquote ordered list — which is removable redundancy. Not a 3 because not literally every token earns its place; not a 2-below because the bulk is dense domain-specific guidance rather than padded concept explanation.

Concrete, executable instruction-only guidance: 'Read `.gsd/STATE.md`', 'Read `src/resources/extensions/gsd/templates/context.md`', 'Use the `write` tool to create or overwrite `.gsd/milestones/<MID>/<MID>-CONTEXT.md`', 'use `mcp__github__issue_write`', plus a copy-ready GitHub issue body template and a dated DECISIONS.md line format. Not a 2 because it names specific tools, paths, and formats rather than giving pseudocode or vague direction; absence of code is appropriate for an instruction skill per the rubric's code_vs_instruction note.

A clear six-step sequence with edge-case handling (no active milestone → ask), a one-round module check-in, and a final success_criteria checklist, but the checklist sits apart from the process rather than acting as an in-flow gate before the destructive file overwrite. Not a 3 because there is no explicit validate-before-write checkpoint; not a 1 because the sequence and checkpoints are largely present and clearly signaled.

A single self-contained file organized into clear tagged sections (objective, context, core_principle, process, anti_patterns, success_criteria) that points to the external template at `src/resources/extensions/gsd/templates/context.md` one level deep rather than inlining it, with no nested reference chains. Not a 2 because organization is clean and references are clearly signaled; the only inline candidate (the conditional GitHub issue template) is small and used in a single branch.

Lists multiple concrete actions in third person — 'Synthesize the current conversation into a milestone brief (PRD)', 'Writes to `M###-CONTEXT.md`', 'files a GitHub issue only with explicit user confirmation', 'Does not interview' — naming specific outputs and a guarded side effect rather than vague language. Not a 2 because it goes beyond naming a domain plus a couple actions to enumerate several distinct concrete behaviors with an explicit constraint.

Explicitly answers both 'what' (synthesize conversation into a milestone brief / PRD, write to a context file, optionally file an issue) and 'when' via a 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers. Not a 2 because the 'when' is explicit and specific, not merely implied.

Quoted natural phrases a user would actually say — 'turn this into a PRD', 'draft a milestone brief', 'capture this context', 'write it up' — plus the situational 'when enough has been discussed to commit the plan to paper'. Not a 2 because it covers multiple common variations users would naturally utter, not just one technical keyword.

Occupies a clear niche — synthesizing a milestone brief / PRD within the GSD workflow — with distinct triggers ('turn this into a PRD', 'draft a milestone brief') unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not a 2 because the triggers and the explicit 'Does not interview' boundary cleanly separate it from adjacent skills like grill-me.