Conciseness

The body avoids generic concept explanations, but it is redundant and could be tightened: 'A qualifying ADR decision point sets the floor to Medium' is stated in both the Creation Decision Matrix and Structural Scale sections, the Medium/Large boundary is restated after the table, and long multi-clause sentences (e.g., the PRD paragraph) pad the routing rules. Fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than the minor-trim level of 4.

Actionability

Concrete, executable decision machinery: a Creation Decision Matrix with scales and base documents, a numbered build order, Structural Scale conditions, a two-part ADR filter with an explicit qualifying-choices list and exclusions, and a storage table with paths and naming conventions. As an instruction-only skill the guidance is actionable; the gap keeping it from 5 is the absence of a worked example classifying a sample change through the rules.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit ('Build one path in this order: 1. Select the base path from Structural Scale. 2. Insert an applicable UI Spec immediately before the Design Doc. 3. ...insert an ADR batch') with checkpoints such as 'check existing ADRs first' and 'Continue after PRD approval'. This is a decision skill, not a destructive or batch operation, so no validation cap applies; it stays at 4 because there is no final step verifying the resulting document set before proceeding.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a true overview that explicitly delegates per-document content to templates ('What to write inside one is defined by its template'), and all six referenced files (prd/adr/ui-spec/design/plan/task templates) exist in references/ exactly as linked, one level deep. References are well signaled in the Storage Locations table and the References section, matching the clear-overview anchor.

Specificity

Enumerates all five document types ('PRD, ADR, UI Spec, Design Doc, and Work Plan') and two concrete actions (determines which a change requires, where each is stored), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because the action set is narrow — routing and storage — without touching authoring or review depth.

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' ('Determines which of PRD, ADR, UI Spec, Design Doc, and Work Plan a change requires, and where each is stored') and 'when' with a concrete 'Use when' clause covering both deciding scope and creating/reviewing a document. This matches the anchor-5 example structure; it is above 4 because the trigger guidance is already explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Names the exact artifacts users mention ('PRD, ADR, UI Spec, Design Doc, Work Plan') plus natural phrases like 'deciding documentation scope' and 'creating or reviewing a technical document'. A few common variations (e.g., 'requirements doc', 'spec', 'write an ADR') are missing, so it fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive-synonym coverage of 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The five named document types form a clear niche with distinct triggers, so it is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Only trivial overlap with a generic technical-writing skill exists, fitting the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.