Conciseness

The body is dense and free of concept-explaining padding, but it is not tight: the 20-line "read-only version check" section enumerates edge cases at length, and boundary caveats (don't auto-trigger reviews, don't gain new authorization, don't block on missing modules) are restated across 职责与协作, 按当前工作加载模块, and 混合交付. This matches level 3 (mostly efficient, some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened) better than level 4, where over-explanation would be only minor.

Actionability

Concrete elements exist — the routing table maps task types to specific module files, and step 3 names a traceability chain ("观察及证据范围→问题/原因→目标与约束→候选及取舍→机制→可观察效果→验证") — but the guidance stays at the level of principles ("区分问题、原因与约束", "用证据限制结论") with no examples, checklist, or worked procedure inline. Operational detail is deferred to reference files, and the four primary module targets (modules/solution-design.md 等) do not exist in the bundle, so key execution details are effectively missing — squarely level 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details).

Workflow Clarity

The 共同方法 section gives a clearly sequenced 5-step process ending in an explicit closed loop ("修订与验证形成闭环……只验证受影响范围"), so a sequence and verification intent are present. However, checkpoints remain abstract principles ("检查机制和依据是否表达完整") rather than executable steps, and the workflow's main continuation instruction — load the appropriate module from the routing table — points at files absent from the bundle, leaving gaps that fit level 3 rather than level 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md is structured as an overview/router with one-level-deep, well-signaled links (all five cited references/*.md files exist, including fragment anchors), but scoring against the actual bundle reveals a broken main navigation path: the four modules/*.md files the routing table dispatches to do not exist, and the five assets/*.md files are never referenced from the body at all. Structure and signaling are better than level 2, but the missing primary targets are more than the "minor organization gaps" of level 4.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "从真实需求场景出发设计应用和方案", "按角色走查交互、视觉或文档阅读体验，并用同一 checklist 修订复验", plus 文稿起草重构, 中文应用文润色, STE 写作, and 画板表达. This matches the level-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage); level 4 would require noticeable coverage gaps, which are not present.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is stated up front (design from real scenarios, role-based walkthrough, checklist revision/re-verification) and the "when" is an explicit use clause ("用于方案比较或重设计、项目交互规范与公共组件、界面优化、文稿起草重构……") plus explicit non-triggers. This matches the level-5 anchor with concrete trigger phrases; level 4 would mean the when-clause is only loosely specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "方案比较或重设计", "交互规范", "界面优化", "润色", "STE 写作", "画板表达" are phrases users would actually say, and the negative triggers ("普通代码修错、纯后端诊断") sharpen matching. It falls short of level 5 because common variations a user might say (e.g. 原型设计, UX 评审/走查, 可用性, 帮助文档/说明书) are not covered.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit exclusion list ("普通代码修错、纯后端诊断、简单纠错、文学创作或纯插画不单独触发") carves out adjacent domains and gives the skill a recognizable niche spanning design walkthrough and document expression. It is not level 5 because the skill deliberately covers both application design and document writing, leaving minor overlap risk with general writing/editing and diagramming skills.