Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's intelligence — no basic concepts are explained, and lines like 'Nothing is owed a paragraph merely because it exists' show deliberate token discipline. A few passages don't earn their place: the metaphor-heavy sentences ('Marching the sections as a form is how a PRD asks an effort that never shipped what its problem costs today') and repeated restatements of the no-technology rule (Critical rule 1, Problem intro, Troubleshooting) could be tightened. This sits between 'efficient with minor trims' (4) and 'every token earns its place' (5) — noticeably above the midpoint but not flawless.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully actionable: exact output path ('.prd/<slug>.md'), concrete question sets per problem kind, named journey states to ask about (empty, first time, retry, half-finished, expired, unauthorised), a defined section list for declined verdicts, and four worked examples with actions and results. Specific guidance covers the common cases, matching the top anchor under the instruction-skill scoring note.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is explicitly sequenced (SITUATION → PROBLEM → VERDICT → FILE, with 'These are not a script, they are the prerequisite order') and includes explicit validation checkpoints: agreement on the boundary before the verdict, user confirmation of the verdict before writing, and confirm-before-replacing an existing file. Troubleshooting entries provide error-recovery paths, and Critical rules act as a checklist. No destructive or batch operation lacks validation.

Progressive Disclosure

The single reference (references/document-format.md, verified to exist) is one level deep, clearly signaled, and loaded at a defined moment ('Read references/document-format.md at that moment. Do not load it during the interview'). The interview process stays in the body while the document format is appropriately split out — clear overview with well-signaled references and easy navigation.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions in third person ('Interviews an idea into a PRD file covering situation, problem, success, boundary, and journey states, and stops before any technical design') and comprehensively names both the deliverable's sections and the skill's boundary. This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; nothing in the skill's scope is left undescribed.

Completeness

Both 'what' ('Interviews an idea into a PRD file covering situation, problem, success, boundary, and journey states, and stops before any technical design') and 'when' ('Use when the user says...') are explicitly and clearly answered with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor. It additionally includes explicit negative triggers ('Do NOT use for designing a solution, choosing technology, publishing the document, or cutting the PRD into tasks').

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases are natural user utterances with good synonym coverage: 'write the PRD', 'create the PRD', 'PRD', 'product spec', 'product requirements', 'tlc-prd', and 'what does the product need to decide'. Coverage is comprehensive across phrasing variations a user would plausibly say; no file extension applies naturally to this domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche (PRD authoring that stops before technical design) and the explicit exclusion list ('Do NOT use for designing a solution, choosing technology, publishing the document, or cutting the PRD into tasks') minimizes conflict with adjacent design, publishing, and task-breakdown skills. This is the minimal-conflict-risk anchor.