Conciseness

The ~50-line body has zero padding: a two-sentence role frame ("People Ops 디렉터처럼 본다. 지금 뽑아야 할 사람과 나중에 뽑아야 할 사람을 구분한다."), a five-bullet input list, an output template, and three trigger examples. Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, matching anchor 5 ('every token earns its place') rather than anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

Actionability

The 출력 형식 template is copy-paste ready with exact table schemas ("| 역할 | 왜 필요한가 | 지금/나중 | 고용 형태 | 월 비용 가정 |") and the trigger examples are quantified ("주간 개발 병목이 2주 이상 지속되면", "CAC 실험이 3개 이상 동시 진행되면") covering common cases. Per the instruction-only scoring note this is fully actionable guidance, not anchor 4's 'minor gaps'.

Workflow Clarity

This is a single-task, non-mutating skill (frontmatter: "mutating: false") whose one action is unambiguous: the input list ("비즈니스 모델", "개발 로드맵", "GTM/세일즈 플랜", "창업자 역량", "자금 상황") and exact output template leave no doubt about what to do, so the simple-skill exception applies. No destructive or batch operations exist, so the validation cap does not apply; below 5 would require sequence gaps or ambiguity that are absent.

Progressive Disclosure

A short (~1.2KB) self-contained skill with no bundle files: the four sections (역할, 입력, 출력 형식, 채용 트리거 예시) are well-organized and no content belongs in a separate file, matching the guideline that skills of this size with no need for external references score 5 on well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

The description enumerates five concrete deliverables ("초기 팀 구성, 채용 우선순위, 고용 형태, 보상, 채용 트리거를 만든다"), exceeding anchor 3's '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' coverage. It falls short of anchor 5 because a single generic verb ('만든다') carries all five objects rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, fitting anchor 4's 'several specific [capabilities]; minor gaps in coverage'.

Completeness

The description clearly answers 'what' (creates team composition, hiring priorities, employment types, compensation, hiring triggers) but contains no 'when' clause; the frontmatter's separate `triggers` list ("HR 플랜", "채용 계획", "팀 구성", "People Ops") sits outside the description field being evaluated, so per the guideline a missing 'Use when' clause or equivalent caps this at 3. Not 2, because the 'what' is clear and specific; not 4, because anchor 4 requires both what and when in the text.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms in the description ("채용", "팀 구성", "고용 형태", "보상", "채용 트리거") are natural phrases a user needing this skill would say, matching anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' — variations like "채용 계획", "인력 계획", or "헤드카운트" appear only in the separate triggers field or are absent, so it does not reach anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear — early-stage startup hiring planning ("초기 팀 구성", "채용 트리거") — and mostly distinct from other skills. Broad terms like "보상" (compensation) and "팀 구성" (team composition) create minor overlap risk with dedicated compensation or org-design skills, fitting anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.