Conciseness

The body is a lean ~55 lines with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line is either behavioral direction ("전략 컨설턴트처럼 질문한다. 좋은 말로 포장하는 것이 아니라, 고객과 문제가 선명해질 때까지 좁힌다"), an exact question, template scaffolding, or a quality rule. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5.

Actionability

The skill provides a copy-paste-ready output template (the fill-in elevator pitch formula "[누가] [어떤 상황]에서 [어떤 문제]를 겪을 때...", the 5-block value proposition table, and the alternatives/differentiation table) plus an exact list of five questions and concrete banned-word quality rules ("모두", "누구나", "편리하게"). It falls short of anchor 5 only through minor gaps: no worked input→output example, and the 입력 section does not say how to obtain the inputs when the user has not supplied them.

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence is implied by section order (gather inputs → ask at most 5 questions, capped by "최대 5개만 묻는다" → fill the template → apply 품질 기준), and the quality bar acts as an explicit checkpoint ("타겟이 너무 넓으면 실패다"). It matches anchor 4 rather than 5 because the ordering is implicit in section layout rather than an explicit numbered workflow, and missing-input handling is unspecified; it is above anchor 3 because validation criteria are present and unambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a single self-contained file with no bundle directories (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and nothing that belongs in a separate file — the question list, template, and quality rules are all appropriately inline at ~55 lines. Sections (역할/입력/질문 패턴/출력 형식/품질 기준) are well-organized and easy to navigate, which per the simple-skill guidance merits a 5.

Specificity

The description specifies a concrete input ("막연한 1문장 아이디어"), a transformation ("정제한다"), and four enumerated output components ("타겟, 문제, 가치제안, 차별점이 있는 아이디어 정의서"), which is more concrete than the anchor-3 example. It is not 5 because it names only one action verb rather than multiple distinct concrete actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and concrete (refine a vague one-sentence idea into a structured idea definition document), and the 'when' is supplied as equivalent explicit trigger guidance via the dedicated frontmatter "triggers" list (아이디어 정제, 엘리베이터 피치, 아이디어 정의서, 1문장 아이디어). It matches anchor 4 rather than 5 because the description text itself contains no inline 'Use when...' phrasing and the trigger coverage could be more extensive.

Trigger Term Quality

The frontmatter trigger guidance lists four natural Korean phrases users would actually say ("아이디어 정제", "엘리베이터 피치", "아이디어 정의서", "1문장 아이디어") and the description repeats "아이디어 정의서". Good coverage but missing common synonyms and variations (e.g., 사업 아이디어, 스타트업 아이디어, 피치 만들기), so it does not reach the comprehensive synonym-level coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (early-stage idea refinement producing an elevator pitch / idea definition document) is clearly distinct, and triggers like "아이디어 정의서" are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Minor overlap risk remains with pitch-deck/presentation or general brainstorming skills via "엘리베이터 피치", fitting anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.