Conciseness

Mostly efficient (tool table, strength tables, anti-patterns table are dense and useful), but includes unnecessary explanation: the ISTQB glossary quote teaches pairwise testing, a concept Claude already knows, and the 4×4×5×6=480 math is computed three times (Overview, Step 1 table, Worked Example), while "How to use" steps 1-5 duplicate the Step 1-5 sections. More padding than the 'minor instances' of the 4 anchor, so 3.

Actionability

Concrete YAML spec, tool comparison with links, a realistic coverage-report example, and a real reference file with copy-paste parametrize snippets. Not 5 because the actual tool invocation is never shown — "Run the tool to compute the reduced set" gives no PICT/AllPairs/CATS command line; better than the 3 anchor's pseudocode-level guidance.

Workflow Clarity

Clear 7-step sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint ("Read the coverage report - accept constraint-driven gaps, or raise strength for real uncovered pairs") that acts as a feedback loop. Not 5 because nothing verifies the emitted tests actually execute in the runner, and the duplicated step lists ("How to use" vs Steps 1-5) add mild sequencing ambiguity.

Progressive Disclosure

The single bundle file references/output-formats.md exists, is one level deep, and is clearly signaled with a proper link from Step 4 where the detail belongs. Not 5 because the ~190-line body retains bulk (the worked example and full coverage-report mockup) that could be split out; well above the 3 anchor's buried or misplaced references.

Specificity

"Combines boundary values, equivalence classes and pairwise (or N-wise) reduction into parameterized cases in the project's runner format" lists several concrete actions with clear outputs. Not 5 because it omits notable skill capabilities (coverage verification, spec-as-source-of-truth); not 3 because it names more than 1-2 specific actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Combines boundary values, equivalence classes and pairwise (or N-wise) reduction into parameterized cases") and when ("Use when a function or endpoint takes 3 or more inputs whose combinations matter and the full Cartesian product is too large"). The when-clause is explicit with concrete trigger conditions, matching the 5 anchor rather than the merely-adequate 4 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say: "takes 3 or more inputs whose combinations matter", "full Cartesian product is too large", "pairwise (or N-wise)", "parameterized cases". Missing common synonyms like "combinatorial explosion", "all-pairs", or "test matrix", so not 5; well above the sparse-keyword level of 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (multi-input combinatorial test reduction) with distinct triggers around Cartesian-product explosion. Minor overlap risk only: the "boundary values, equivalence classes" wording could trigger for a sibling single-input boundary-analysis skill, so not 5; far more distinct than the 3 anchor.