Conciseness

The body is mostly lean bullet-style guidance, but 'Failure Mode' and 'Gotchas' each appear twice with near-identical text, and 'Execution Boundaries' repeats its bullets verbatim ('Produce interview questions...' and 'Do not create ADRs...' each appear twice). The duplication exceeds the minor trimming of the 4 anchor but is not pervasive enough for the 2 anchor's 'several padded sections'.

Actionability

Directives are concrete ('frame the decision in one sentence', 'Compare 2-4 viable alternatives', 'Name the sacrifice and the non-obvious consequence'), but the skill's primary output artifact — the Linear-ready decision note — has no template or example showing its structure. The guidance is actionable but incomplete, matching the 3 anchor's 'missing key details' rather than the 4 anchor's minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced (frame, ask, compare, name sacrifice, produce note, fail fast) and the Validation section supplies a real feedback loop ('stop at the first failed gate; do not proceed until it is fixed and rerun'). Not 5 because validation checkpoints are generic — no concrete validator, check, or command is named for any step.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and the local references (references/contract.yaml, references/evals.yaml, references/task-profile.json) resolve in the bundle, but the primary 'Read when' pointers — Infrastructure/references/software-literature-expert-lens-pack.md and Infrastructure/references/software-literature-skill-expertise-map.md — do not exist in this bundle, and the Progressive Disclosure bullets are themselves duplicated. Dangling primary references and duplication place this at the 3 anchor's 'could be better organized' rather than the 4 anchor's 'references mostly clear'.

Specificity

Names several specific actions and artifacts — 'Analyze, review, and plan architecture alternatives through a structured interview', 'tradeoffs surfaced', 'Linear decision note instead of an ADR' — though the leading verbs are somewhat generic. It lists several specific actions with minor gaps rather than the comprehensive coverage of the 5 anchor, and exceeds the 1-2 concrete actions of the 3 anchor.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Analyze, review, and plan architecture alternatives through a structured interview') and when ('Use when the user needs tradeoffs surfaced before implementation or a Linear decision note instead of an ADR') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the 5 anchor pattern exactly. Not 4, because the 'when' clause is fully explicit rather than merely adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'architecture', 'tradeoffs', 'implementation', 'ADR', 'Linear decision note'. A few natural terms users might say are missing, such as 'design decision', 'system design', or 'compare options', keeping it below the comprehensive synonym coverage of the 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — pre-implementation architecture decision interviews with Linear-vs-ADR output capture — with distinct triggers, but 'tradeoffs surfaced before implementation' has minor overlap with general planning or code-review skills. Mostly distinct rather than minimal-conflict like the 5 anchor.