Conciseness

The body is a ~500-line monolith in which the same invariants ("never eliminates, ranks, or scores") are restated across FLOW, MORPHISM, axiom doc comments, Rules, and Known Limitations, and the Definition carries literature-review padding ("Runco & Acar, 2012", "Wadinambiarachchi et al., 2024") plus a Lean formal block whose prose commentary duplicates the Protocol section. It does not explain concepts Claude already knows, so not a 1, but several sections are noticeably padded and redundant — anchor 2.

Actionability

Concrete guidance exists — "read `references/blank-entry.md` before presenting it", "read `references/seeded-entry.md` before the first pass", "present continue first and 'Take this field as it stands' second" — but the bulk is a formal contract whose axioms are "yours to judge", with no worked example of a relay, a rendered map, or a round's offer. Some concrete guidance, incomplete — anchor 3; not 4 because the operational core is buried in abstract formalism rather than executable direction.

Workflow Clarity

A sequence is present (FLOW: "start: the records `reference` names, read → the classification relay → Blank: … → the map"; the `ideate` definition's Taken/Invoked/Reaches decision branches) but it is scattered across the formal block, PHASE TRANSITIONS, Protocol, and Rules with no consolidated step list, and checkpoints (relay correction, map completeness, the taking gate) are implicit rather than stated as verification steps. Anchor 3 — sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit; not 4 because the multi-step process requires reassembly by the reader.

Progressive Disclosure

The bundle structure is genuinely good — all three references exist, are one level deep, and are clearly conditionally signaled ("read `references/round-composition.md` before composing when a term's rendering has to hold across the session") — but the entire ~500-line Lean formal block is inlined in SKILL.md when it is exactly the deep-detail material that belongs in a reference file, matching the anchor's "content that should be separate is inline." Not 4 because most of the body's mass is misplaced relative to a lean overview; not 2 because the references that do exist are well organized and never nested.

Specificity

The description names the deliverable concretely — "one map from their words and what they name — frames, branches, idea origins, the unexplored" — and the action "take it, nothing chosen", which is domain plus 1-2 concrete actions rather than a list of several specific operations. Not 4 because the actions are characterized abstractly rather than enumerated; not 2 because it goes well beyond a bare domain label.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (a map of frames, branches, origins, and unexplored areas the user can take, "nothing chosen"), but the "when" is only the state clause "The idea field is empty, narrowed too early, or thin" — there is no "Use when…" or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, and no mention that the skill activates only on direct /ideate invocation. Per the guideline, missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Some relevant natural keywords appear ("idea field is empty", "narrowed too early, or thin"), but common user phrasings like "brainstorm", "give me ideas", "stuck", or "more options" are missing, and much of the vocabulary ("frames", "branches", "idea origins", "the unexplored") is protocol jargon users would not naturally say. This fits the anchor for some relevant keywords while missing variations and synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The divergence-without-selection framing ("take it, nothing chosen", "the unexplored") carves a clear niche distinct from document- or code-processing skills, with only minor overlap risk against other ideation/brainstorming skills. Not 5 because "idea field is empty… or thin" could still co-trigger with a generic brainstorming skill.