Conciseness

The body is dense and directive with essentially no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every section issues instructions ("Reject giant passive prompts", "Keep at most one slice in progress"). It is not a 5 because a ~190-line body for a multi-phase process retains a few statements that restate or could be tightened (e.g., plan-rendering rules appear across two sections, and the persistence paragraph mixes several rules).

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: a literal copy-paste plan template with slice IDs and statuses ("1. [IN PROGRESS] S1 - Contract and minimal end-to-end behavior"), verbatim bounded-direction prompts ("Implement only the RED test for S2. Run it and stop before production code."), a minute-by-minute 45-minute clock, a 7-step validation checklist, and named scoring dimensions with a 1-5 scale and N/A rule. No code is expected (instruction skill), and the specific examples cover the common cases, matching anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (mode selection → role boundaries → contract → visible plan → directed AI → RED/GREEN cycles → clock → production discussion → validation/scoring) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: "Run it and confirm RED for the expected reason", "Confirm GREEN, update the visible plan, and stop", mid-exercise checkpoints ("If the minimal path is not green by minute 22, cut optional scope immediately"), and re-render triggers for the plan. Anchor 5's explicit validation steps and error-recovery checkpoints are met; anchor 4's 'minor validation gaps' does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an appropriately sized overview and all three bundle files exist and are exactly one level deep with no nested references. Each is clearly signaled with a conditional load condition: "read [references/candidate-led-pairing-prompt.md]" when preparing the initial prompt, "Read [references/productionization-walkthrough.md] when coaching or evaluating this follow-up", and "use [references/eval-plan.md]" for maintenance/benchmarking. This matches anchor 5's well-signaled, one-level-deep structure with easy navigation.

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions — "Guide realistic AI-assisted coding interview rehearsals, timed mocks, and evidence-based scoring" — each a distinct, verifiable capability. It stops short of anchor 5 because only three actions are listed with no coverage of sub-activities (e.g., scorecards, exercise selection), a minor gap.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Guide realistic AI-assisted coding interview rehearsals, timed mocks, and evidence-based scoring") and when ("Use for live backend AI coding interview practice that needs interviewer, coach, and coding-agent roles"), plus a concrete negative trigger ("do not use for ordinary feature implementation"). This matches anchor 5's requirement for concrete trigger phrases on both sides; anchor 4's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply since the when-clause names the exact context and required roles.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present: "coding interview", "timed mocks", "interview practice", "rehearsals", "backend". A few common variations are missing (e.g., "mock interview", "interview prep", "technical interview"), keeping it below anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is sharply delimited — AI-assisted interview practice requiring three named roles — and the exclusion clause "do not use for ordinary feature implementation" prevents overlap with general coding skills. Minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5.