Conciseness

The body never explains concepts Claude already knows and every section is on-task, but the creep signals are stated three times in slightly different forms — the "Signals that creep is starting" bullets, the "Common agent driven creep" quotes (which map almost one-to-one onto the signal bullets), and the final "Checklist". That duplication is a minor instance of content that could be trimmed, fitting anchor 4 rather than the lean anchor 5.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully actionable: a numbered procedure ("Finish the ask... Collect the extras... Put them in one place... Let the user pick"), exact output formats ("under a `Suggestions` heading, one line each"; "`Out of scope` with a one line reason"), a worked before/after example with a copy-paste-ready summary template, and a verification checklist. Per the rubric's scoring notes, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this concrete; no gaps remain for anchor 4.

Workflow Clarity

The response workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: a four-step procedure, a gating decision step ("Before adding anything, ask... If the first answer is no, it goes in suggestions"), and a closing checklist for verification. The skill involves no destructive or batch operations, so the validation cap does not apply, and no validation gaps remain to justify anchor 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The single-file body is well organized with clear section headers and no content that clearly belongs in separate files; no references/ or scripts/ bundles exist, and none are strictly needed. However, at ~117 lines it exceeds the rubric's under-50-line exception for a bare 5, and the ~30-line before/after example could be split into a reference file — minor organization gaps consistent with anchor 4.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions covering the full behavior: "Keeps a change scoped to what was asked", "Flags extra features, refactors, and 'while we are here' edits", and "moves them to a suggestions list instead of the diff". Detection, response, and output location are all named, leaving no coverage gaps; it does not fit the anchor-4 example ("several specific actions; minor gaps").

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the "what" is stated concretely (keeps scope, flags extras, moves them to a suggestions list) and the "when" is an explicit "Use when..." clause with three concrete trigger situations. This mirrors the anchor-5 example structure exactly; anchor 4's weaker/'could be more explicit' caveat does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrasings are present — "when a request is small and the agent is about to expand it", "when a PRD grows beyond its problem statement", and the very natural user quote "when the user says 'just do what I asked'". A few natural terms users would say are missing (e.g., "scope creep", "out of scope", "keep it minimal"), which fits anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5 (comprehensive synonyms) or 3 (only some relevant keywords).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The scope-discipline niche is clear with distinctive triggers ("just do what I asked", request expansion, PRD growth). However, "when a PRD grows beyond its problem statement" could also plausibly trigger a PRD-management or PRD-writing skill, which is a minor overlap risk with a closely related skill — anchor 4 rather than 5's "minimal conflict risk".