Conciseness

The body is efficient, assumes Claude's competence, and never explains concepts Claude already knows (no primer on refactoring or Kent Beck). Minor redundancy: the 'What is covered in this Skill?' list partially restates the Workflow, and 'When to use this skill' repeats the description triggers verbatim, so it is not fully lean like anchor 5.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill, the guidance is mostly actionable: step 2 names concrete techniques ('extract method or class, clarify names, isolate dependencies, add seams for testing, add characterization tests') and step 4 names concrete validation options (existing tests, build checks, characterization tests, manual verification). Not a 5 because no commands or worked examples are given and some steps remain direction-level ('inspect the relevant code and tests').

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints after each phase (step 4 'Validate preserved behavior', step 6 'Verify and report the outcome') and an explicit error-recovery loop ('If behavior changes unexpectedly, fix or revert the preparation before proceeding'), matching anchor 5 exactly.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview that delegates detail to a single real one-level-deep reference (references/051-design-two-steps-methods.md, verified to exist), referenced both in the workflow and in a dedicated Reference section. Structure is clean and easy to navigate, matching anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('complex or risky code change') and concrete actions ('behavior-preserving preparatory refactoring', 'making the intended behavior change once the design supports it'), but covers only the two-step method's actions rather than several specific operations, sitting between anchors 3 and 4. It is not a 5 because it does not enumerate multiple distinct concrete actions with comprehensive coverage.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (split a change into behavior-preserving preparation followed by the intended behavior change) and 'when' ('Use when a complex or risky code change should be split...' plus 'This should trigger for requests such as...') with concrete trigger phrases. It clearly matches the anchor 5 example structure and is not merely adequate like anchor 4.

Trigger Term Quality

It lists natural user phrases ('Apply two-step change; Make this risky change safer; Refactor before changing behavior; Separate preparation from behavior change') that users would plausibly say. Not a 5 because common synonyms such as 'make the change easy, then make the easy change' (present only in the body) are missing from the description.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The two-step change method is a distinct niche with specific triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, though it could minorly overlap with a general refactoring skill. It is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk, matching anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict clarity of anchor 5.