Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: a two-sentence role stance ("VC Principal처럼 본다"), an input checklist, a fenced output template, and three terse rules. Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows and every token earns its place, matching anchor 5.

Actionability

The guidance is fully executable for an instruction-only skill: a copy-paste-ready output template with exact table schemas (BMC 9 blocks, TAM/SAM/SOM with 신뢰도, unit economics with 계산식/근거 상태), a concrete input list, and specific rules such as "LTV/CAC가 3 미만이면 위험 신호로 표시한다" and bottom-up sizing. Per the scoring notes, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-pass drafting skill whose single action is unambiguous — inputs are enumerated, the output format is fully templated in a fixed section order, and rules constrain the content. Embedded checkpoints (신뢰도 and 근거 상태 columns, the LTV/CAC < 3 risk flag, the "지금 당장 검증할 것" section) provide validation without needing error-recovery loops, so the simple-skill exception applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ do not exist) and none are needed: the ~60-line body is organized into four clearly headed sections (역할, 입력, 출력 형식, 규칙) with nothing that clearly belongs in a separate file. Navigation is trivial, matching the well-organized-sections standard for a single-file skill.

Specificity

The description names several concrete deliverables — "9블록 BMC", "시장 규모", "unit economics 초안" — attached to a single expansion action, which goes beyond the 1-2 concrete actions of anchor 3. It falls short of anchor 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (e.g., no mention of assumption identification or validation guidance that the skill actually provides).

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ("아이디어를 9블록 BMC, 시장 규모, unit economics 초안으로 확장한다") but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 2 because the 'what' is specific rather than vague, and not 4 because no 'when' is present at all.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are present: "BMC", "시장 규모", "unit economics" — roughly the keyword density of anchor 4's example. It is not anchor 5 because common variations like the full Korean term "비즈니스 모델 캔버스" and "TAM SAM SOM" are absent from the description text itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The BMC + market-sizing + unit-economics framing carves out a distinct niche with minimal conflict risk. It is not 5 because the description lacks explicit trigger phrases and "시장 규모" (market size) is broad enough to overlap with generic market-research or business-plan skills.