Conciseness

The body is dense and table-driven — Inputs table, JSON bundle schema, single-command CLI blocks, output tree — with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It misses 5 mainly because the 'Diff vs dair-academy version' comparison table is provenance commentary rather than instruction, adding tokens that do not earn their place during execution.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: the full bundle JSON schema with required keys, the MCP call with concrete args, and copy-paste 'node $SKILL_ROOT/scripts/build-survey.js --bundle ... --wiki ... [--provider ...] [--model ...]' commands. Gaps keep it below 5: '--bibliography-size' and '--section-count' appear in the Inputs table but never in the CLI synopsis, and two referenced files ('templates/research_bundle.template.json', '../../references/provider-configuration.md') do not exist in the bundle.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-4 are clearly sequenced (read anchor → build bundle → run generator → iterate) with hard rules as constraints and an explicit rerun feedback loop ('If prose is thin: tighten sections[].guidance and rerun'). Not 5 because there is no validation checkpoint on the generated output — nothing instructs checking that citations resolve to bibliography keys or that all sections were produced before upserting.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is well sectioned with clear headers, but scored against the actual bundle: the only bundle file is scripts/build-survey.js, while 'templates/research_bundle.template.json' and the link '[provider configuration](../../references/provider-configuration.md)' are dangling — those referenced paths do not exist, so navigation to the promised detail fails. This matches the 'some structure but references not properly backed' level rather than 4, where references would resolve and be well signaled.

Specificity

Quotes list several concrete actions — 'Compile a structured literature survey', 'curates a research bundle (taxonomy + sections + bibliography of real papers)', 'generates the survey artifact', 'lands in <wiki>/derived/surveys/<slug>.md' — matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of 5 because the file-path and provider-list detail is implementation context rather than additional capability actions, and iteration/verification actions are absent.

Completeness

Both what and when are answered explicitly and concretely: the what ('Compile a structured literature survey... curates a research bundle... generates the survey artifact') is specific, and the when is an explicit trigger clause ('Use when the user asks for a "survey", "literature review", "lit review", or "deep dive" on a technical topic'). This matches the top anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say — '"survey"', '"literature review"', '"lit review"', '"deep dive" on a technical topic' — giving good keyword coverage with synonyms. Not 5 because common variations like 'state of the field', 'map of the field', or 'reading list' are missing; not 3 because multiple natural synonyms are present rather than just one or two generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'literature survey / lit review on a technical topic' niche is mostly distinct with clear triggers, fitting the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor. Not 5 because the generic trigger 'deep dive' could also match general research or deep-research skills; not 3 because the core triggers are far more specific than the overlapping examples at that level.