Conciseness

The body is dense and almost entirely skill-specific discipline (harness contracts, artifact coupling, right-reason loop) with little that Claude already knows — above the score-3 anchor with only 'some unnecessary explanation'. A few spots could be trimmed: the nine-principle philosophy section spends tokens justifying the design ('Don't recite them — *embody* them... teach it as you work') and P9's 'Explain → confirm → act → take feedback' restates behavior already implied elsewhere, so it falls just short of the score-5 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: Step 7 gives copy-paste-ready git commands (`git checkout -b prd/<author-slug>/<feature>`, `git add prds/<feature>/`), Step 6 gives the exact command (`chmod +x prds/<feature>/run-prd-test.sh` and run it), Step 0 names the derivation source (`git config user.email`), and every step points to the specific reference file that operationalizes it. This matches the score-5 anchor; score 4 would understate the concreteness of the commands and per-step file routing.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–7 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and a feedback loop: the Step 3 decide-to-build gate, Step 6's iterate-until-every-failure-shape-matches loop with exit-code reading and wrong-reason diagnosis, and Step 7's 'With the user's confirmation'. This matches the score-5 anchor (clear sequence, explicit validation, error-recovery loop); score 4 would ignore the fully specified right-reason feedback loop.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview that appropriately defers detail to four real, one-level-deep references, each clearly signaled with what it contains and when to read it ('Read the two seam references before and during the conversation'; 'the two artifact references when you reach the build'). All four referenced files exist in references/ with no nested reference chains. This matches the score-5 anchor; no content that belongs in a reference is inlined in the main body.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions and outputs: 'Turn an open-ended idea into a PRD plus a runnable definition of done' and 'Produces prds/<feature>/prd.md + an executable prds/<feature>/run-prd-test.sh on a prd/<author-slug>/<feature> branch.' Every capability named is specific and verifiable, matching the 'multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' anchor rather than the score-4 anchor's 'minor gaps in coverage'.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: 'what' via 'Turn an open-ended idea into a PRD plus a runnable definition of done' plus the concrete artifact list, and 'when' via 'Use when a developer wants to start a new feature, "file a PRD", "spec out" or "scope" an idea, think through what to build, or kick off the harness.' This matches the score-5 anchor exactly and is above the score-4 anchor where the 'when' could be more explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural trigger phrases users would actually say: 'file a PRD', 'spec out', 'scope' an idea, 'think through what to build', 'kick off'. A few common variations (e.g. 'write a spec', 'requirements doc') are missing, which fits the score-4 anchor ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than the comprehensive score-5 anchor; score 3 would undervalue the multiple explicit synonyms present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The PRD/intent-specification niche is clear with distinct trigger phrases ('file a PRD', 'spec out'), so it sits above the score-3 'could still overlap' anchor. However, generic planning triggers like 'wants to start a new feature' or 'think through what to build' have minor overlap risk with general planning/brainstorming skills, which keeps it below the score-5 'minimal conflict risk' anchor.