Conciseness

The body is dense and free of concept-explanation padding, but key points are stated two or three times: 'a verdict without a cited source is a guess, not a finding' appears in both the intro and Mindset; the never-'it depends' rule appears four times (intro, Mindset, step 2, and implicitly in the anti-pattern rationale); and the second anti-pattern ('NEVER let a subagent answer from memory... Cargo.toml/mise.toml') restates step 2's AVOID bullet nearly verbatim. Fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than 4, since the duplication is whole sections, not minor instances.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: an exact validator invocation with exit-code semantics ('scripts/validate-tech-evaluation.sh <path-to-yaml>', 'exit 0 → schema-valid'), a complete itemized brief for the research subagent, explicit enum values, real file paths (scaffold, schema, validator), and a BAD/GOOD rationale example. Not 4: there are no gaps — a reader can execute the workflow without inventing steps.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps with an explicit validation checkpoint (step 3: run validator, check exit code) and a feedback loop ('send the YAML back to the subagent rather than manually patching it into shape'), plus a final confirmation step ('confirm the new file is present in the regenerated index before reporting the evaluation as complete'). Matches the anchor with explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and completion checks; not 4 because checkpoints are present at every consequential step.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-sectioned overview with one-level-deep references, all of which exist in the bundle (references/question-dimensions.md, references/finding-record-layout.md, assets/templates/tech-evaluation-scaffold.yaml, assets/schemas/tech-evaluation.schema.json, scripts/validate-tech-evaluation.sh), each surfaced in a 'When to Use' table. Detail (worked dimension examples, record layout) is correctly pushed to the reference files. Not 4: navigation is easy and nothing that belongs in a reference is inlined.

Specificity

Multiple concrete actions are named: 'Investigate a candidate library, dependency, or file format against a fixed question set', 'end with exactly one cited recommendation (adopt / keep_current / reject / needs_more_research)', 'Validates the structured output against a JSON schema before writing a human-readable finding' — the action set is comprehensive with nothing vague. Not 4: there are no minor gaps; the actions, the output contract, and the validation step are all enumerated.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ('Investigate... against a fixed question set and end with exactly one cited recommendation') and when ('Use when choosing between candidate npm packages, dependencies, or file formats... or when a plan or ADR decision hinges on an unverified factual claim'), plus an explicit Do-NOT-use clause and trigger phrases. Not 4: both what and when are concrete and specific, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are explicitly listed: 'evaluate this library', 'investigate this dependency', 'compare X vs Y', 'properly evaluate this technology', 'which format should we use', 'is this package maintained' — covering synonyms across library/dependency/package/format/technology. Not 4: the trigger list includes the common variations users would actually say, not just domain keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (evidence-cited technology evaluation for integration/ADR decisions) with distinct triggers and an explicit negative boundary ('Do NOT use for one-line version lookups, purely subjective preference calls... or a technology choice already settled by an existing ADR'). Not 4: the do-not-use list actively disambiguates against the nearest overlapping skills, minimizing misfires.