Conciseness

The body is dense and checklist-like with no over-explanation of known concepts, but the shaping-file list (brief.md, breadboard-pack.md, spike-investigation.md, risk-register.md) is duplicated verbatim within one section ("No Context Loss" followed by "Try find this information:"), and the multi-PRD location rules are repeated three times (Quick Start, Outputs, Steps). This matches anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened); it exceeds anchor 2 but falls short of anchor 4, where only minor trims would be needed.

Actionability

The guidance is specific (concrete clarifying questions, section checklists, exact naming conventions like prds/<slice_id>_<slug>/prd.md), but the central executable step "Copy the template: assets/prd-template.md" points to a file that does not exist in the bundle, and the minimum structure is "defined by" that missing file. This matches anchor 3 (concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details); not 4 because a key dependency is unavailable to execute.

Workflow Clarity

Five sequenced steps (clarify, run slicing rubric, template, fill sections, verify) are followed by an explicit "## Verification" checklist with about ten checkpoints, matching anchor 4 (clear sequence, most checkpoints present). It falls short of anchor 5, which requires feedback loops for error recovery (what to do when a verification check fails), and exceeds anchor 3, which only requires a sequence with implicit checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist at all, yet the body routes to assets/prd-template.md three times as the source of the required structure — a broken, dead-end reference. This matches anchor 2 (minimal effective structure / broken navigation); it does not merit anchor 3, because the missing file is the load-bearing reference rather than a minor organization gap, and the inlined slicing rubric plus repeated output rules could have lived in a separate file.

Specificity

"Draft PRD with scope, stories, acceptance criteria, verification" names the domain and enumerates the deliverable parts, but relies on a single action verb ("Draft") rather than several distinct concrete actions, matching anchor 3. It is not anchor 4, which requires multiple specific actions (e.g., "extracts, fills, converts"), and not anchor 2 because the language is concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: what ("Draft PRD with scope, stories, acceptance criteria, verification") and when ("Use when shaping a new feature or spec"). The single when-clause is narrower than anchor 5, which demands concrete multi-condition trigger phrases, but broader than anchor 3, where the when is missing or only implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user terms like "PRD", "spec", "new feature", and "acceptance criteria" are present, but common variations such as "product requirements document", "requirements", or "write a PRD" are missing, matching anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing). Not 5 because synonym and full-name coverage is absent; not 3 because the included terms are natural phrases users would say, not just jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

PRD drafting is a clear niche, but "spec" and "shaping a new feature" have minor overlap with general planning or spec-writing skills, matching anchor 4 (mostly distinct; minor overlap risk). Not 5 because "spec" is a broad trigger that could pull in related skills.