The body is mostly efficient and actionable, but at ~360 lines it includes conceptual ARE/NOT framing Claude largely already knows and duplicates the 'what business logic flaws are NOT' exclusion list and attack-category checklist between the main body and the Phase 2/Phase 1 subagent prompts, so it could be tightened.

It provides fully copy-paste-ready subagent prompts in blockquotes, exact markdown output templates, a concrete batching procedure with worked examples (8 scenarios to 3 batches), and explicit file names and classification labels.

The three phases are explicitly sequenced with stated dependencies ('Phase 2 must run after Phase 1'), Phase 2 itself is a verification step, the Exploitable/Likely/Not/Needs-Review classification acts as a validation gate, and the 'Important Reminders' section serves as a checklist.

No bundle files exist and all content — the 12 attack-category reference list and the long subagent prompt templates — is inline in a single 360-line file, so content that could be split into reference files is instead monolithic.

The description lists multiple concrete actions: 'Detect business logic vulnerabilities', 'threat modeling (domain analysis and attack scenarios)', 'batched verify', and 'merge (consolidate batch results)', matching the score-3 anchor of multiple specific concrete actions.

It explicitly answers both 'what' (three-phase detection approach and coverage areas) and 'when' via an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so it is not capped at 2.

It closes with 'Use when asked to find business logic, logic flaws, or abuse-of-function bugs', giving good coverage of natural terms a user would actually say.

Business logic vulnerability detection is a clear niche with distinct triggers, and the description's scoping (price manipulation, workflow bypass, etc.) makes overlap with injection/auth skills unlikely.