Conciseness

The body is dense and instructional with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the framing paragraph ("The output is not a decorative research deck. It is a working room for debate") and the "When to use this skill" section restate information already in the frontmatter description — minor instances that could be trimmed, so anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place of anchor 5.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: exact ledger row fields (`id`, `source_type`, `segment`, `signal`, `quote_or_metric`, `strength`, `limitations`), enumerated source types, a fixed 8-section artifact information architecture, defined 1-to-5 scoring dimensions, and a copy-paste-ready `<artifact>` emission template with a defined stopping point ("Nothing after the closing `</artifact>`").

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps with an explicit validation checkpoint ("Run the checklist. Then emit") and strong anti-fabrication rules, but the failure path is only implied — the anchor-5 pattern expects an explicit "if the checklist fails, fix and re-run" feedback loop rather than just a single pre-emit check.

Progressive Disclosure

References are well signaled at the right workflow moments ("Read `references/evidence-model.md` before synthesis and run `references/checklist.md` before emitting") and both files exist one level deep. However, the resource map lists `example.html`, which does not exist in the bundle — a dangling entry that keeps this below anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names multiple concrete inputs ("research notes, interviews, support tickets, surveys") and six specific output components ("evidence ledger, theme map, confidence heatmap, opportunity matrix, decision memo, and experiment queue") — comprehensive coverage with no gaps, matching the anchor-5 example's level of specificity.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is turning inputs into "a single HTML artifact with an evidence ledger, theme map, confidence heatmap, opportunity matrix, decision memo, and experiment queue", and the "when" is stated verbatim as "Use when teams need to move from qualitative signals to product or design decisions without fabricating certainty" — concrete trigger phrasing present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-phrase coverage ("user research notes", "interviews", "support tickets", "surveys", "qualitative signals") that users would actually say, but common variations like "usability test", "research findings", or "NPS comments" are absent from the description itself. Not 3 because coverage is clearly good rather than partial; not 5 because several natural synonyms are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and distinctive ("evidence-backed decision room", "without fabricating certainty"), but output language like "confidence heatmap" and survey/qualitative phrasing overlaps slightly with general data-visualization and research-reporting skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk — anchor 4 rather than 5.