Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient, directive content (gates, tables, commands, templates) rather than concept explanation, but it could be tightened: the full PRD template appears twice (Step 0 seed template and the near-identical "PRD Target Structure (final)" section), and "action before asking / no derivable questions" is restated at least four times (CoreRule, Principle 2, Gates A–B, Anti-Patterns), matching the score-3 anchor of mostly efficient with some unnecessary repetition. It does not reach score-4 efficiency because the duplicated PRD template and the long Codex-exception paragraph are clearly trimmable, but it is well above the score-2 anchor's padded explanatory sections since nearly everything is actionable instruction rather than filler.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable throughout: exact bash commands ("python3 ./.trellis/scripts/task.py create ... --slug <auto>"), complete copy-paste PRD markdown templates, multiple-choice question message templates, a complexity-to-action table, and concrete Task-tool sub-agent dispatch syntax with ❌/✅ examples. This matches the score-5 anchor (copy-paste ready commands covering common cases) rather than score-4, which allows minor gaps — the only placeholder, "--slug <auto>", is immediately explained by the instruction to use a slug without a date prefix.

Workflow Clarity

The Steps 0–8 are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: the Question Gates before any ask, immediate PRD updates after each answer (a feedback loop), a final confirmation gate ("Does this look correct? If yes, I'll proceed"), and checklists (repo inspection, documentation) — matching the score-5 anchor of clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so the validation cap does not apply, and score 4's "minor validation gaps" does not fit given the built-in confirmation and convergence checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The body has clear step-based section structure, but everything is inlined in a single ~550-line file with no bundle references at all; content that naturally belongs in separate files (the full PRD templates, the research output format, the Codex exception details) sits inline, and inline references to "workflow.md Phase 1.2" point outside the bundle without being clearly signaled as external. This matches the score-3 anchor (some structure, content that could be separate is inline); it falls short of score 4's "most content is appropriately placed" because nothing is split out despite the volume, and the simple-skill exception (under 50 lines) plainly does not apply.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions covering the full workflow: "Creates task directory, seeds PRD, asks high-value questions one at a time, researches technical choices, and converges on MVP scope" — five specific capabilities with no vague filler. This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage, and exceeds the score-4 anchor ("several specific actions; minor gaps") because the actions span the entire discovery lifecycle rather than leaving gaps.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the "what" is concrete ("Guides collaborative requirements discovery before implementation. Creates task directory, seeds PRD... converges on MVP scope") and the "when" is an explicit trigger clause ("Use when requirements are unclear, there are multiple valid approaches, or the user describes a new feature or complex task"). This mirrors the score-5 good example structure (capabilities sentence + explicit Use-when sentence); the score-4 anchor's weakness (when only weakly specified) does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when requirements are unclear, there are multiple valid approaches, or the user describes a new feature or complex task" provides good natural trigger phrases a user would actually say. However, common synonyms are missing: "brainstorm" (the skill's own name), "planning", "requirements gathering", "scope", and "MVP" never appear as trigger terms, so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of the score-5 anchor while clearly exceeding the score-3 anchor ("some relevant keywords but missing common variations").

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — requirements discovery before implementation — is distinct, and primary triggers ("requirements are unclear", "multiple valid approaches") are unlikely to fire the wrong skill. However, the trigger "the user describes a new feature or complex task" is broad enough to overlap with general development-workflow and planning skills, which is exactly the "minor overlap risk with closely related skills" of the score-4 anchor; the score-5 anchor requires minimal conflict risk across distinct triggers, and this broad clause introduces more than minimal risk.