Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative — no concept explanations of things Claude already knows, and each rule is stated once with a WHY/BAD/GOOD trio. Two spots could be trimmed: the "Quick diagnostic" bash block (echoing "$USER_PROMPT" through head adds no real capability) and the 3-6 question budget, which is stated in "When to use", protocol step 5, and again implicitly in step 5's sufficiency check. This is anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed), not 5.

Actionability

Fully actionable instruction-only guidance: it names the exact tool ("Use the AskUserQuestion tool for a single question at a time"), fixes exact option counts ("3-4 concrete, mutually exclusive options"), gives a copy-ready opening script, per-situation troubleshooting responses, and concrete BAD/GOOD examples for every rule. Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this specific.

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step protocol is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: an adaptive check before each question ("does this answer make a planned question moot?"), a sufficiency gate ("could I write the recap right now without guessing?"), a hard confirm-before-finalize gate, and a closing verification checklist including contradiction-surfacing and file-existence checks. This matches the top anchor's sequence-with-explicit-validation-and-checklists pattern; no destructive or batch operations are involved.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview (~200 lines) with two well-signaled, one-level-deep references — [`question-design.md`](references/question-design.md) and [`worked-example.md`](references/worked-example.md) — both verified to exist, each annotated with exactly what it contains, and neither nesting further references. Content is appropriately split: the deep question-design rationale and the full transcript live outside the body.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, comprehensive actions — "one-question-at-a-time interview", "3-4 concrete, mutually exclusive options plus a free-text path", "later questions adapt to prior answers", "Ends with a recap the user confirms before finalizing", "produces a synthesized answer or... a written brief" — all in third person. It matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; there is no vague filler to push it down.

Completeness

The "what" is explicit and detailed, and "when" guidance exists but only negatively ("NOT for open-ended ambiguity-surfacing (use socratic-method) or single-fact lookups") plus an implicit purpose clause ("to explore a specific topic or decision") — there is no positive "Use when..." trigger phrase. This fits anchor 4 (both present, 'when' could be more explicit) rather than 5, and the explicit boundary clause keeps it above anchor 3 where 'when' is merely weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "interview", "one-question-at-a-time", "decision", "brief", "recap" — but common user phrasings like "ask me questions", "help me decide", or "walk me through" are absent (some appear only in the body, not the description). It sits between "good coverage, a few natural terms missing" (4) and comprehensive synonym coverage (5), and is not noticeably above the 4 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche (structured interview with concrete curated options) and explicitly redirects the nearest competitor: "NOT for open-ended ambiguity-surfacing (use socratic-method)". Distinct triggers and a named differentiation give minimal conflict risk, matching the top anchor.