The description names the domain (experimentation platform selection) and some actions like 'migrate between them', 'coordinate when multi-platform is genuinely warranted', and 'decisions that compound for years', but the actions are more conceptual than concrete. It doesn't list specific deliverables like 'generates comparison matrices' or 'produces migration plans'.

Clearly answers both 'what' (platform decision framework for experimentation, comparisons, migration guidance, multi-platform coordination) and 'when' with explicit trigger clauses ('Triggers on...', 'Also triggers when...'). The when guidance is thorough and covers multiple scenarios.

Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including specific platform names (Statsig, PostHog, GrowthBook, Optimizely, Amplitude, Eppo, Kameleoon), common user phrases ('which experimentation platform', 'ab test platform selection', 'vendor lock-in'), and contextual triggers ('cost, governance, or migration cost'). These are terms users would naturally use.

Highly distinctive with a very specific niche: experimentation platform selection and comparison. The named platforms and specific domain (A/B testing, feature flags, warehouse-native experiments) make it unlikely to conflict with other skills.

The skill is extremely verbose at ~3000+ words. It explains concepts a senior advisor would already know (what a PDF is equivalent: what experimentation platforms are, what vendor-native means, what governance is). The 7 considerations are listed, then repeated as 11 considerations later with significant overlap. Platform profiles contain marketing-style prose ('strong PM-led ergonomics') rather than decision-relevant facts. Much content could be cut by 50%+ without losing actionable information.

The skill provides concrete decision guidance (the decision matrix summary is genuinely useful with specific recommendations per context) and migration effort estimates. However, there are no executable commands, no code examples, no concrete API calls, no template outputs, and no specific steps for actually performing an evaluation or migration. The guidance is directional rather than copy-paste actionable.

The 11-consideration framework provides a clear sequence, and migration patterns include parallel-run validation steps. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints in the evaluation workflow itself (e.g., 'run a trial, measure these specific metrics, compare against these thresholds'). The migration section mentions three rules but defers the actual step-by-step to a reference file. The evaluation workflow lacks a concrete checklist or decision tree with verification gates.

Seven reference files are clearly listed with descriptive labels and relative paths, which is good structure. However, no bundle files were provided, so the references are unverifiable. More importantly, the SKILL.md itself is far too long — the per-platform profiles, cost details, common mistakes list, and governance discussion should largely live in the reference files rather than being inlined. The main file should be a concise overview pointing to these references, not a near-complete treatment.