Conciseness

The body is dense and directive with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; each section carries actionable guidance (path table, nine moves, rules with rationale). A few rhetorical asides could be trimmed — the STATIK provenance note ('which STATIK never had to') and flourishes like 'This move produces more argument than the other eight combined, which is the point' — keeping it at anchor 4 rather than the fully lean anchor 5.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete for an instruction-only skill: specific output files ('reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-workflow-discovery.md', 'steps/<id>.md'), config keys ('unit', 'unit_outcome', 'evidence_exits', 'decision_points'), a rung scale, and a linter ('flow_lint.py'). Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5: no invocation for flow_lint.py is shown, and there is no inline example of a step contract or workflow.md fragment — everything is delegated to template/reference files.

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section gives a clear nine-step sequence with a validation checkpoint (step 8: run flow_lint.py and treat violations as design problems) and a Quality Gates checklist. The error-recovery loop (fix violations and re-run the linter) is implied but never explicit, and the linter is referenced without a command, fitting anchor 4 rather than the explicit feedback-loop anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: an overview body with an annotated, one-level-deep References section covering interview, first-principles, unit-of-value, schema, contracts, and archetypes files. Minor organization gaps: the body and the References section use inconsistent paths ('references/discovery-interview.md' vs 'skills/flow-driven/references/discovery-interview.md', bare 'workflow-archetypes.md'), and referenced files (templates/workflow.md, templates/step.md, flow_lint.py) are neither listed in References nor present in the bundle — anchor 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions and outputs — 'interview people about how work actually happens today and match it against archetypes', 'derive one from first principles', and a comprehensive deliverables list ('unit of value, the steps and graph (branches, back-edges, sub-graphs), exit evidence per step, pull policies and WIP limits, classes of service, decision points, delegate and run model per step, and cadences') — in third-person voice. Coverage of the skill's outputs is comprehensive, matching the anchor-5 example rather than the minor-gaps anchor 4.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: a clear 'what' (three paths in plus the full list of produced artefacts) followed by an explicit 'Use when standing up a new agentic workflow, surfacing an implicit one, or reworking a definition that no longer matches reality.' This matches the anchor-5 example pattern of concrete what + explicit when-clause with multiple triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases like 'standing up a new agentic workflow', 'surfacing an implicit one', and 'reworking a definition that no longer matches reality' are present, but common synonyms a user might say ('document how work flows', 'map the process', 'process design') are missing and the deliverables clause is dense with internal jargon ('classes of service', 'cadences', 'pull policies and WIP limits'). Good coverage with a few natural terms missing fits anchor 4; anchor 5 requires comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche (workflow definition) within a named family ('Part of the flow-driven family') with triggers specific to definition work. However, generic 'workflow' keywords and the 'adapting it' path create minor overlap risk with closely related sibling skills (flow-driven-ingest, flow-driven-scaffold), fitting anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.