Conciseness

The body is noticeably verbose: the same boundary claim ('frame does NOT realize isolation, arrange, execute, or synthesize') is restated 6+ times across Definition, the FLOW comments, Phase 3, Tool Grounding, and the Categorical Note, and a ~125-line inlined code block is densely padded with repeated caveats. Not a 1 because it is a genuinely novel protocol whose density is partly warranted rather than explaining things Claude already knows; not a 3 because the repetition is pervasive padding, not a few stray over-explanations.

Actionability

There is concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance (the per-perspective directive template, the Intent/Deliverable/Scope Mission Brief, the one-line lens format), but the bulk of the body is abstract formal notation ('coproduct discriminated by substrate specialization need', 'arrangement functor') rather than executable instruction. Not a 4 because the type-theory dominates and leaves key rendering details implicit; not a 2 because the Rules and Protocol sections do give specific actionable templates.

Workflow Clarity

The process is explicitly sequenced (Phase 0 -> 1 -> 2 -> 3) with feedback loops and checkpoints: the J_mb confirm/modify loop and the Z zero-candidate guard with modify/supply responses. This is a framing/placement skill, not a destructive or batch one, so the destructive-cap-at-3 does not apply. Not a 5 because the dense notation buries the checkpoints and there is no compact readable checklist; not a 3 because the checkpoints are genuinely present and explicit, just obscured by notation.

Progressive Disclosure

Two of five reference files are clearly signaled and one level deep ('Consult references/conceptual-foundations.md', 'Read references/round-composition.md'), but three reference files (agent-teams-bp-applicability.md, evaluation-methodology.md, isolation-rationale.md) are never referenced from the body, and a large inlined formal-specification block (FLOW/MORPHISM/TYPES) is content that could live in a reference. Not a 4 because of the orphaned reference files and the inlined monolithic spec; not a 2 because there is real section structure and the signaled references are clean.

Specificity

Names the domain ('Multi-perspective framing') and two actions ('places analytical lenses, hands off lens↔substrate pairs'), but the actions are abstract and jargon-laden ('substrate pairs') rather than concrete, and the trailing 'Type: ... -> FramedInquiry' signature adds no actionable behavior. Not a 4 because coverage is thin and the language is more notational than concrete; not a 2 because it does name the domain plus a couple of actions.

Completeness

It states what it does ('places analytical lenses, hands off lens↔substrate pairs') and gives an explicit when clause ('Fires when the right framework is absent'), so both what and when are present. Not a 5 because the when is abstract rather than a concrete user-utterable trigger phrase; not a 3 because an explicit trigger clause is present, so the missing-trigger cap does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger language like 'Fires when the right framework is absent' and 'analytical lenses' is technical phrasing a user would rarely say aloud; only generic keywords ('framework', 'perspective') appear and natural user synonyms are missing. Not a 1 because a couple of relevant terms exist; not a 3 because the common natural phrasings users actually utter are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Multi-perspective framing' with lens-placement and substrate-handoff is a fairly distinct niche with minimal conflict risk, though it has minor overlap with the closely related /conduct skill it repeatedly nudges toward. Not a 5 because the jargon blurs crisp distinctiveness and the /conduct adjacency is real overlap; not a 3 because the trigger is specific enough to avoid broad conflicts.