Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary scaffolding. The tables and step-by-step process add structure but the 'Always Ask' step and some of the task-specific questions feel like padding for what Claude could infer. The content could be tightened.

Provides structured guidance with clear questions to ask and a decision matrix for project types, but lacks concrete examples of actual README output. No example README snippets or before/after comparisons are provided — it describes a process rather than showing executable results.

The three-step process (Identify Task → Task-Specific Questions → Final Check) is clearly sequenced with distinct paths for creating, adding, updating, and reviewing. Each path has explicit checkpoints and the workflow is unambiguous for a non-destructive content generation task.

References to templates (templates/oss.md, etc.) and supporting files (section-checklist.md, style-guide.md, using-references.md) are well-signaled and one level deep. However, no bundle files were provided, so we cannot verify these references exist. The main content is reasonably sized but the project types table could potentially be offloaded to a reference file.

Names the domain (README files) and mentions some actions ('writing or improving', 'provides templates and guidance'), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'generate badges, create table of contents, add installation instructions'.

Explicitly answers both what ('provides templates and guidance matched to your audience and project type') and when ('Use when writing or improving README files'), with a clear trigger clause.

Includes 'README' as a natural keyword users would say, but misses common variations like 'README.md', 'project documentation', 'repo docs', or 'getting started guide'. Coverage is limited.

README files are a clear, specific niche. The description is unlikely to conflict with general documentation skills or code writing skills due to the explicit README focus and mention of templates/audience matching.