Conciseness

The body is dense and efficient — tables, terse bullets, and copy-paste templates that assume Claude already knows Cynefin rather than re-teaching it. It is not a 3 because there is little concept re-teaching, and not a 5 because the LLM-expertise-bias warning is repeated three times (the section 0 "LLM bias warning", the anti-pattern "NEVER classify as Complicated just because you have knowledge", and the "NEVER let T1 alone override" section), which could be consolidated.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable for an instruction skill: exact AskUserQuestion question texts with numbered answer options (T1-T3), a complete Domain→Verb→Route routing table with named downstream skills, template outputs to present (auto-classification block, domain map), and a handoff prompt. Not a 4 because the specific examples (three usage examples covering vague bug, feature request, and composite decomposition) cover the common cases with no notable gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered pipeline (0 auto-classify → 1 triangulate → 1.5 decompose → 2 classify+route → 3 handoff) with explicit validation checkpoints at each decision point: the Adjacent Domain Challenge before confirming auto-classification, "Confirm? [Yes / Re-classify manually]", "Adjust / Confirm / Re-frame", and the final "Proceed?" gate, plus an error-recovery loop (the AskUserQuestion empty-answer guard with a fallback and wait instruction). This is a non-destructive routing skill, so no destructive-operation cap applies; not a 4 because checkpoints and feedback loops are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Six real one-level-deep reference files in references/ are listed in a clearly labeled References section, each annotated with the exact domain condition it serves (e.g., "handoff template: Complex, no hypothesis → brainstorm"), and the decision logic is appropriately kept inline. Not a 5 because the references are only listed at the bottom — the Step 2 routing table and handoff steps never link to them inline at the point where each template would be used; not a 3 because the references are well-signaled and the split is appropriate.

Specificity

"Classify problem using Cynefin triangulation (3 tests + decomposition) to route to the right skill chain" lists several distinct actions (classify, triangulate, decompose, route). It is not a 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are named, and not a 5 because the actions are somewhat abstract ('route to the right skill chain') rather than a fully comprehensive, concrete capability list.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' is "Classify problem using Cynefin triangulation (3 tests + decomposition) to route to the right skill chain" and the 'when' is a concrete "Use when:" clause with trigger phrases, plus a negative boundary ("NOT for known tasks — just do them"). Not a 4 because the 'when' is fully explicit with concrete triggers, leaving nothing weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when: frame, what approach, how should I start, which skill, where to begin, unsure what to do" gives good coverage of natural user phrases. It is not a 3 because these are phrases a user would naturally say (not just domain keywords), and not a 5 because a few common synonyms are missing (e.g., 'stuck', 'not sure how to approach').

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit negative boundary ("NOT for known tasks — just do them") and the routing/decision framing give it a clear niche versus execution skills. Not a 5 because broad triggers like "what approach" and "how should I start" could still overlap with general planning/architecture skills; not a 3 because the boundary clause handles the main overlap case.