Conciseness

The ~35-line body is efficient: it does not explain what a feature request is or how GitHub issues work, and each paragraph adds only template-specific guidance (e.g., 'Possible Solution is optional. Include it only if there is a concrete implementation idea'). Minor trimming is possible — the opening scope sentence and the 'Do not create or modify any existing Github issues' sentence partially restate each other — matching the score-4 anchor of 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation'.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete: the template path is given explicitly, the title format is specified ('feat: add [what] to/in [where]'), output format is pinned ('Provide the markdown code block only'), and per-section guidance is specific (e.g., 'If duplicates or related issues exist, mention them in the Context section'). It falls short of score 5 because there is no worked example of a completed issue and the template contents are external, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

As a simple, single-purpose skill the action is largely unambiguous: read the template, fill each section per the guidance, search for duplicate issues and mention them in Context, suggest a title, and output only the markdown code block. It scores 4 rather than 5 because the sequence is scattered across prose (the duplicate-search step appears late, after section guidance) rather than presented as an ordered flow with a final pre-output checklist.

Progressive Disclosure

The single external reference (the feature-request template at ../../ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature-request.md) is one level deep and clearly signaled, and the body is short enough that no additional files are needed — consistent with the simple-skill guidance. It scores 4 rather than 5 because the flat body has no section headers to aid navigation, and the referenced template path does not resolve from the skill directory as evaluated, so its existence cannot be verified.

Specificity

The description names a concrete domain and 1-2 concrete actions — 'Generate a feature request issue for the FAST repository using the provided template' — but only covers a single action (generation) rather than the several specific actions of the score-4 anchor. It is more concrete than the score-2 anchor ('Processes PDF files'), which names a domain with only generic actions.

Completeness

It has a clear 'what' (generate a feature request issue for the FAST repository using the provided template) but no 'when' — there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not score 2 because the 'what' is specific and unambiguous, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

'feature request', 'issue', and 'FAST repository' are natural terms a user would say, but common variations and synonyms ('suggest a feature', 'propose an enhancement', 'open an issue') are missing, matching the score-3 anchor of some relevant keywords without common variations. It does not reach score-4's 'good keyword coverage' because there is no trigger phrasing beyond the single statement of purpose.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoping to 'the FAST repository' and to 'feature request' issues carves out a mostly distinct niche with clear triggers, matching the score-4 anchor of 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. It is not score 5 because it could still overlap with sibling issue-generation skills (e.g., bug report or other issue templates) without a distinguishing trigger clause.