Conciseness

The body is lean behavioral guidance Claude does not already know ("Propose, don't ask.", "Scannable in one read. If it needs scrolling, split it.", the redirect rule) with zero padding or explanation of known concepts. Every line instructs the specific protocol; nothing can be trimmed without losing guidance, matching the top anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, executable direction throughout: specific markers ("⭐ Recommended approach", "❌ Alternatives"), a named tool ("Confirm each chunk with AskUserQuestion"), and a concrete grouping anti-example ("framework choice, state management choice, and styling choice ... belong in one chunk"). Not 5 because there is no positive worked example showing what a well-formed chunk actually looks like; not 3 because the guidance is specific and executable, not pseudocode-level.

Workflow Clarity

The Flow section gives a clear sequence with an explicit checkpoint ("Confirm each chunk with AskUserQuestion before moving to the next") and an explicit feedback loop ("When the user rejects a chunk ... Rethink from the redirect point forward"), reinforced by the anti-patterns "Moving to the next chunk without explicit confirmation" and "Continuing with pre-planned chunks after a redirect". No destructive or batch operations are involved, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple, single-purpose skill (~40 content lines) with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ do not exist) and no need for external references; the body references no files, which is consistent. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, well-organized sections (Core Principle, Flow, Presenting Chunks, Handling Redirects, Anti-patterns) earn the top score.

Specificity

"Presents a proposed approach in progressive confirmable chunks" plus "with recommended decisions and alternatives" names three specific actions, matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. Not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (e.g., the confirmation interaction and redirect handling are absent); not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions with concrete presentation mechanics.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers what ("Presents a proposed approach in progressive confirmable chunks with recommended decisions and alternatives") and when ("Use when aligning on a design, plan, or technical approach before implementation") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor and the good-overall-example pattern. Score 4 would apply only if the 'when' were vague or implicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when aligning on a design, plan, or technical approach before implementation" supplies natural phrases a user would say ("aligning on", "design", "plan", "before implementation"). Not 5 because common synonyms and variations ("agree on an approach", "review the plan", "architecture") are missing; not 3 because coverage is clearly better than a few scattered keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The mechanism ("progressive confirmable chunks with recommended decisions and alternatives") carves a distinct niche, but the trigger domain "design, plan, or technical approach" is broad and could overlap with general planning or brainstorming skills. Not 5 due to that overlap risk with closely related skills; not 3 because the trigger and mechanism are considerably more specific than generic overlap examples.