Conciseness

The core checklist and "Best Practices" are tight, but the body pads tokens with non-actionable boilerplate: "This skill implements a proven product management framework. The approach combines best practices from industry leaders", a generic "Input Requirements" section, and a "When to Use" list that duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim. This is noticeably more padding than the minor-trim level of 4, but the bulk of the body is still efficient, so it is not 2.

Actionability

The numbered 1-5 output structure (Hypothesis, Test Design, Variants, Risks and Controls, Analysis Plan) and specific best practices ("Choose one primary metric", "Run tests for full weekly cycles") give usable guidance, but key execution details are missing: no method or formula for the promised "Sample size needed", no recommended significance threshold or power level, and the worked Example is cut off mid-sentence ("Hypothesis (new 1-step flow will increase co..."). That incompleteness keeps it below 4, while the concrete framework keeps it above 2.

Workflow Clarity

The five-part deliverable sequence is clearly enumerated, but the workflow is muddied by the "Instructions" section being framed as a user prompt template ("Help me design an A/B test for [feature/change]" with a "[Add context...]" placeholder) rather than direction to Claude, and the truncated example leaves the intended end-to-end output implicit. It is not 4 because these gaps make the actual execution path ambiguous; it is not 2 because a real, ordered structure is present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a self-contained ~60-line document with clear section headers and no external bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist), so nothing is buried or nested. It misses 5 because of organization gaps: duplicate "When to Use" content and generic filler sections ("Domain Context", "Input Requirements") that dilute the overview.

Specificity

"Design robust A/B test experiments" names the domain plus one concrete action, but the description omits the skill's other capabilities spelled out in the body (hypothesis formulation, sample size calculation, analysis plans). It is not score 2 because it goes beyond a bare generic statement, and not score 4 because coverage of concrete actions is limited to a single verb with the fluffy qualifier "robust".

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: "what" via "Design robust A/B test experiments" and "when" via the concrete "Use when testing a new feature, validating a hypothesis, or optimizing conversion rates" clause. This matches the top anchor of a clear what plus an explicit when with concrete trigger phrases, so it is not 4 (the when is already specific, not in need of improvement).

Trigger Term Quality

"testing a new feature, validating a hypothesis, optimizing conversion rates" are natural phrases users would say when they need this skill. It falls short of 5 because common synonyms like "A/B testing", "experiment", "split test", or "rollout" are not present as trigger terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A/B test design is a distinct niche with mostly unambiguous triggers, but "validating a hypothesis" and "testing a new feature" are broad enough to overlap with general experimentation or QA-style testing skills. Minor overlap risk places it at 4 rather than 5.