Conciseness

The body is 8 lines with zero padding: a purpose sentence and a two-item reference list, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor; it is not a 4 because there are no instances of over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

'Use this skill to clarify requirements and produce a plan before implementation' describes intent without any concrete steps, commands, examples, or criteria — and the two reference links that would carry the actual guidance point to files that do not exist in the bundle. This matches 'entirely vague or abstract; only describes rather than instructs'; it is not a 2 because not even high-level executable hints are present.

Workflow Clarity

The skill is inherently a multi-step process (research, then produce a plan) but the body provides no sequence, no steps, and no checkpoints of any kind — the workflow exists only in the referenced files, which are missing. This matches 'steps missing or incoherent; no sequence'; it is not a 2 because not even a rough step list is present.

Progressive Disclosure

The References section is a well-formed one-level-deep overview pattern in shape, but both links ('reference/research.md', 'reference/make-plan.md') point to files that do not exist anywhere in the bundle, so the promised detail is unreachable and the skill is an empty shell. This lands at 'minimal structure' rather than a 3-4 'references present and clear', because navigation is broken; it is not a 1 because the body is a small organized overview rather than a monolithic wall of text.

Specificity

The description names the domain and two actions — 'Perform structured research' and 'turn findings into an implementation plan' — but these stay at a high level with no further concrete actions, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It is not a 4 because it does not list several specific actions, and not a 2 because the actions named are more than a generic domain label.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (structured research plus turning findings into an implementation plan), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not a 2 because the 'what' is explicit rather than vague, and not a 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

'structured research', 'findings', and 'implementation plan' are natural phrases a user might say, but coverage stops there — missing common variations and synonyms like 'investigate', 'requirements', 'before coding', or 'spec'. This sits at 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations', below the 'good keyword coverage' of a 4 because there is no trigger clause supplying additional natural terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The two-stage research-to-plan pipeline gives it some shape, but 'research' and 'plan' are broad terms that overlap heavily with general research, planning, and brainstorming-style skills. It fits 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'; it is not a 2 because the pipeline framing is more specific than a bare domain label, and not a 4 because no distinct trigger terms set it apart.