Conciseness

Workflow steps and the artifact tree are terse with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the five CLI examples repeat shared flags (--output-dir, --tickets-dir) and the LLM-augmented section partially duplicates the CLI Usage section, so a 5 ('every token earns its place') is not reached.

Actionability

Five copy-paste-ready invocations of scripts/orchestrate_edge_pipeline.py cover the common cases (tickets, OHLCV, resume, review-only, dry-run), plus a concrete YAML hint schema with real field values and flags documented with defaults ('default: 0.75', 'floor: 3'). Fully executable guidance matching the top anchor.

Workflow Clarity

Eight clearly sequenced steps include an explicit review-revision feedback loop (max 2 iterations, PASS/REJECT/REVISE verdict semantics, downgrade to research_probe) and a guard note on which flags are ignored in resume/review-only modes. Not 5 because there is no guidance for stage failures or verifying the run manifest — a minor validation gap; not 3 because checkpoints (the review loop) are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview that defers detail to two well-signaled, one-level-deep references in a Resources section ('references/pipeline_flow.md — Pipeline stages, data contracts, and architecture'; 'references/revision_loop_rules.md — Review-revision feedback loop rules and heuristics'), both verified to exist alongside scripts/orchestrate_edge_pipeline.py. Content is appropriately split with easy navigation.

Specificity

"from candidate detection through strategy design, review, revision, and export" enumerates the full stage chain comprehensively, but the single verb "Orchestrate" is abstract — it never states what is concretely done (runs the pipeline script, produces exported strategies). Fits anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5 (multiple concrete action verbs) or 3 (coverage is comprehensive, not 1-2 actions).

Completeness

Has a clear what ("Orchestrate the full edge research pipeline from candidate detection through... export") and an explicit when ("Use when coordinating multi-stage edge research workflows end-to-end"). Not 5 because the when-clause is near-circular with the what and lacks concrete trigger phrases (e.g., mentions of tickets, OHLCV data, or exporting strategies); not 3 because 'Use when...' guidance is explicitly present.

Trigger Term Quality

"edge research", "pipeline", "candidate detection", "strategy design", "review, revision, and export" are natural phrases for this domain, but common variations users would say — trading strategies, backtesting, OHLCV, tickets — are missing. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing fits anchor 4, not 3 (coverage is strong) or 5 (no synonyms or input-format terms).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"edge research pipeline" carves out a clear niche with minimal generic phrasing, but the stage chain implies sibling skills (hints, concepts, drafts, review) that could each trigger for partial requests, creating minor overlap risk with closely related skills per anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.