Conciseness

Mostly operational rather than explanatory, but contains noticeable tightening opportunities: the Execution Gate paragraph duplicates Step 4's convergence rules, coverage criteria appear in both Step 3 and Step 4, the 'Context Separation' note restates Step 0's envelope independence, and the abstract scope-envelope prose ('newly discovered areas are inside the envelope only when they have one of the relationships above...') is denser than needed. Not 2 because no Claude-known concepts are explained and there is no padding; not 4 because the redundancy and abstract phrasing exceed minor instances.

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready Agent tool invocations with exact subagent_type, description, and prompt templates, a mechanical extraction rule for filling placeholders ('copy the named source values into the exact fields, apply only the declared serialization'), a re-run prompt for quality failures, and two complete report templates. Not 5 because the two prerequisite skills ('Execute Skill: llm-friendly-context', 'Execute Skill: subagents-orchestration-guide') are named without invocation mechanics or paths, and placeholder assembly still depends on orchestrator judgment in edge cases.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0-7 are clearly sequenced with an explicit Execution Gate, a Step 2 quality-check checklist with a re-run feedback loop, Step 4 coverage convergence with enumerated branch conditions and dispositions (closed / gaps_remaining / evidence_unavailable), a defined return path to Step 1, and a final Completion Criteria checklist. This matches the anchor for clear sequence, explicit validation steps, error-recovery feedback loops, and checklists; no validation gaps identified for this non-destructive workflow.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent) and the ~220-line body is well-organized with clear headers, inline prompts, and report templates integral to the flow. Not 5 because the two report templates (~50 lines) could be split into a references file at this length, the two external skill executions are not clearly signaled with paths, and Step 0 sits outside the 'Execution Steps' section; not 3 because nothing is buried and the structure is genuinely good.

Specificity

Lists three distinct workflow actions ("Investigate problem", "verify findings", "derive solutions") forming a coherent process, but names no domain and the objects are generic. Not 4 because the gap is major (no domain, no concrete artifacts); not 2 because the actions are neither minimal nor a single generic verb.

Completeness

The 'what' is stated as a three-phase process, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines. Not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise; not 2 because the 'what' is clearly articulated with three concrete verbs.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains some relevant keywords ("investigate", "problem", "verify", "solutions") but misses the natural phrases a user would say for diagnosis work: "diagnose", "root cause", "debug", "troubleshoot", "bug", "fix". Not 4 because common variations and synonyms are absent; not 2 because more than one or two relevant keywords are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Investigate problem, verify findings, and derive solutions" is very broad and would overlap with virtually any debugging, troubleshooting, analysis, or research skill. Not 1 because it would not trigger for unrelated skills (documents, charts, PDFs); not 3 because no niche or differentiating trigger is stated despite the skill name 'recipe-diagnose' suggesting one.