Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and skill-specific, but it repeats the fractional-share guidance in at least four places (Overview, Step 1, a full extra bash example, Key Principles 3-4) and the five near-duplicate bash blocks could be collapsed into one command plus a flag table. It also embeds time-sensitive regulatory detail with specific dates ("effective 2026-06-04, with broker phase-in allowed through 2027-10-20") outside any 'old patterns' section, which the guidelines penalize. Not score 4 because these are more than minor trimmable instances; not score 2 because there is no padding that explains concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Every workflow step is backed by copy-paste-ready commands: five complete bash invocations covering fixed-fractional, fractional, ATR, and both Kelly modes, plus a constraints example and a concrete JSON output schema. The examples cover the common cases exactly as the top anchor requires. Not score 4 because the commands are complete and executable as written with all flags and realistic values.

Workflow Clarity

The six steps are clearly sequenced with concrete commands and explicit decision points (mode selection in Step 1, scenario comparison in Step 4, binding-constraint explanation in Step 5). This is a read-only calculation skill, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply. Not score 5 because there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery loops (e.g., what to do if the script errors or inputs are inconsistent); not score 3 because the sequence itself is complete and checkpoints are only implicit, not missing.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a workflow-focused overview that delegates methodology depth to a well-signaled, one-level-deep reference ("Read `references/sizing_methodologies.md`", listed again in Resources with a description), and the calculation logic to `scripts/position_sizer.py`; both files exist in the bundle. Not score 4 because there is no inline content that clearly belongs in a separate file and all references are clearly signaled in both the workflow and a Resources section.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "Calculate risk-based position sizes", "stop-loss distance calculation, volatility scaling, and sector concentration checks" — matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. Not score 4 because there are no meaningful coverage gaps: the three sizing methods and their supporting calculations are all named.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the "what" is stated up front ("Calculate risk-based position sizes for long stock trades") and the "when" is a concrete "Use when user asks about..." clause with specific trigger phrases. Not score 4 because the when-clause is already fully explicit, not merely implied or general.

Trigger Term Quality

"position sizing, how many shares to buy, risk per trade, Kelly criterion, ATR-based sizing, fractional-share sizing, or portfolio risk allocation" comprehensively covers the natural phrases a user would say, including technique names and colloquial variants. Not score 4 because no common synonym or variation is obviously missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche (risk-based position sizing for long stock trades) with distinct triggers like Kelly criterion and ATR-based sizing that are unlikely to fire for a generic portfolio or stock-screening skill. Not score 4 because overlap risk with closely related skills is minimal given the precise scope statement.