Conciseness

The body is dense, domain-specific prescription with almost no padding, but the 'Questioning styles' section ("Open-ended... Encourage detailed responses", "Closed-ended... Seek specific information") restates interviewing basics Claude already knows and could be trimmed. This fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than level 5's every-token-earns-its-place.

Actionability

Every questioning move carries an applicability condition plus ready-to-use phrasing ("When did that last happen? What did you do?", "Say it's the worst month you've had a year from now. What happened?", "Earlier you said X; now Y. Are you correcting X, or do both hold under different conditions?"), and the cue table maps utterances like "usually" and "we have to wait for" to exact follow-up questions. For an instruction-only skill this is fully concrete guidance covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The loop "Choose a move for the active gap, ask, see what changed, then choose again" gives explicit sequencing with early/late prioritization guidance; 'When the interview goes wrong' is an error-recovery feedback table ("Fluent, but nothing new recorded: change the move"); and Closing is a terminal read-back checklist. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so no cap applies, and the feedback loops satisfy the level-5 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

A single ~90-line file with nine well-labeled sections and a genuinely operational cue table, but no references at all while conditional material (the 'Interview length' levels, which apply only when an instruction names a level) is inlined. Being above the 50-line simple-skill threshold, this is 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' rather than the ideal split of level 5.

Specificity

The 'what' is a single generic action — "Interviewing the USER about their operation" — and the enumerated items ("asking a substantive question, consulting a source, handling a correction or conflict, pinning down a quantity") are trigger situations rather than the skill's own concrete actions. This matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' better than the level-4 anchor 'lists several specific actions', and is above level 2 because the domain and trigger situations are concrete.

Completeness

"Interviewing the USER about their operation" states the what, and "Use before asking a substantive question, consulting a source, handling a correction or conflict, pinning down a quantity, or deciding the account is enough" is an explicit when-clause with five concrete trigger phrases, plus a negative boundary. It is not level 4 because the when is already explicit and specific, satisfying 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'.

Trigger Term Quality

Some phrases are natural ("asking a substantive question", "correction or conflict", "pinning down a quantity"), but jargon like "the account", "the net", and "deciding the account is enough" is not something a user would say when needing this skill, and common variations or synonyms are absent — fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than level 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Not for changing the net; that is `modelling`" explicitly disambiguates the sibling skill and the interviewing niche is clear, but the broad trigger "before asking a substantive question" and "consulting a source" could overlap with ordinary clarifying-question or lookup skills. This is 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills', not the minimal-conflict level 5.