Conciseness

The body is four sentences with zero padding — no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, no filler. Every token earns its place ("Interview me relentlessly... Walk down each branch... For each question, provide your recommended answer"), matching the lean-and-efficient anchor.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill, the guidance is concrete: per-question behavior is specified ("provide your recommended answer"), sequencing is given ("resolving dependencies between decisions one-by-one"), and there is an explicit rule for when to explore the codebase instead of asking. It stops short of fully-executable guidance — e.g., no instruction to summarize or restate the shared understanding at the end — leaving minor gaps versus the level-5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The single interview task is unambiguous with an explicit stop condition ("until we reach a shared understanding") and per-question guidance, which under the simple-skill note could support a 5. However, the checkpoint is implicit — there is no explicit step to confirm or restate the shared understanding with the user before concluding — placing it at the clear-sequence-with-minor-gaps anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, has no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), and contains nothing that belongs in separate files — all guidance fits naturally in SKILL.md. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, this earns full credit; no references are buried because none are needed.

Specificity

The description names the domain (plan/design stress-testing) and two concrete actions — "Interview the user relentlessly" and "resolving each branch of the decision tree" — matching the 1-2 concrete actions anchor. It does not list several specific actions (e.g., probing assumptions, recommending answers, resolving dependencies), so it falls short of the level-4 anchor.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree") and when, with concrete trigger phrases ("stress-test a plan", "get grilled on their design", "grill me"). This matches the level-5 anchor; it is not level 4 because the 'when' clause is already fully explicit rather than needing more specificity.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions 'grill me'" provides good natural trigger phrases users would actually say. A few common variations are missing (e.g., "poke holes in my plan", "devil's advocate", "pressure-test", "challenge my design"), keeping it below the comprehensive-synonyms anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The distinctive "grill me" trigger and interview framing carve out a clear niche, but "stress-test a plan" has minor overlap risk with closely related plan-review or feedback skills. It is above level 3 (the trigger is distinctive, not merely 'somewhat specific') but below level 5 because plan/design review is a crowded space.