Conciseness

The body is efficient: a single worked example carried through five terse steps, tables instead of prose, and a "When to use" section that actively redirects to sibling techniques. Minor over-explanation could be trimmed — repeated block quotes of syllabus text (e.g., "decision tables are used for testing the implementation of requirements...") restate concepts Claude already knows, and narrative asides like "R3 and R7 already smell" add tokens — which keeps it below the lean-every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully actionable: exact notation conventions (T/F/-/N/A/X), mechanical fill rules, a complete worked example with concrete dollar values ($80/$20), and a ready-to-use test case table with setup/action/expected-result columns. Every step tells the model precisely what to produce, matching the copy-paste-ready equivalent for a non-code skill.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–5 are clearly sequenced, and validation checkpoints with feedback loops are explicit: Step 1's mis-extraction check ("if an outcome appears in the spec but in no action row, you mis-extracted"), the '?' flags resolved in Step 4, and "If that check fails, the table must be rebuilt with R3/R7 feasible" after the constraint check. This matches the clear-sequence-with-explicit-validation-and-feedback-loops anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references: extended-entry forms and anti-patterns are split out to references/decision-table-details.md (verified to exist, with no nested references), linked with a described purpose, and the References section maps siblings and distinct neighbors for navigation. Content split is appropriate — the derivation and worked example belong inline; the edge-case material is external.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "Builds a decision table, collapses irrelevant and impossible combinations and writes one test case per remaining column" — which clearly match the several-specific-actions anchor. It falls short of the 5 anchor only because intermediate workflow detail (e.g., building the full 2^n table, coverage measurement) is compressed, and the phrase "irrelevant and impossible combinations" leans slightly jargon-y rather than fully concrete.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: "Use when a spec's outcome depends on several interacting conditions (pricing, eligibility, discounts, routing rules) and needs manual test cases" gives concrete 'when' triggers, and "Builds a decision table, collapses... and writes one test case per remaining column" gives a clear 'what'. This matches the 5 anchor's what-and-when-with-concrete-trigger-phrases pattern; it cannot be 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain phrases users would say are present: "pricing, eligibility, discounts, routing rules", "spec", "manual test cases", and "decision table" itself. A few natural synonyms are missing (e.g., "business rules", "combinations", "test design"), keeping it at good-but-not-comprehensive coverage rather than the 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The interacting-conditions trigger ("outcome depends on several interacting conditions", pricing/eligibility/discounts/routing) carves out a clear niche distinct from boundary-value or state-transition testing skills, and "per ISTQB" plus "one test case per remaining column" signals the specific technique. Minimal overlap risk with neighboring test-design skills; matches the clear-niche anchor.