The body is lean — a focused 'What is covered' list, terse MUST constraints, and a numbered workflow — with no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place.

It gives a concrete menu of refactorings ('extract method or class, clarify names, isolate dependencies, add seams for testing...') and specific verification means; as an instruction skill the absence of executable code is not penalized and the guidance is concrete, not abstract.

The six-step workflow has explicit validation checkpoints (Step 4 'Validate preserved behavior', Step 6 'Verify and report') and a feedback loop ('If behavior changes unexpectedly, fix or revert the preparation before proceeding').

The body is an overview pointing to a single one-level-deep reference (references/051-design-two-steps-methods.md, which exists and contains no nested references), clearly signaled via a dedicated Reference section and an inline workflow pointer.

The description names concrete, distinct actions — 'behavior-preserving preparatory refactoring' followed by 'the intended behavior change' — rather than vague language, matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.

It explicitly answers both what (split a risky change into preparation then behavior change) and when, via both a 'Use when...' clause and a 'This should trigger for requests such as...' list.

Trigger phrases like 'Apply two-step change', 'Make this risky change safer', 'Refactor before changing behavior', and 'Separate preparation from behavior change' are natural requests a user would actually say, with good variation coverage.

The Kent Beck two-step framing and specific triggers carve a clear niche unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, despite one somewhat broad phrase ('Make this risky change safer').