Conciseness

Five compact rules in a single code block plus a one-line cross-reference — lean, no concept over-explanation, every token earns its place and assumes Claude's competence.

Actionability

Names concrete tools (record_vulnerability, upsert_project_fact), confidence levels, and evidence types (command output/HTTP response/file content/回连记录), but provides no full copy-paste code example showing call syntax.

Workflow Clarity

The rules encode verification checkpoints and an explicit feedback loop (verify → fail → write negative-result Fact via upsert_project_fact), but the guidance is a ruleset rather than an explicitly sequenced step-by-step workflow.

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with a single well-organized section and one clearly signaled one-level cross-reference ("与黑板工具对齐见 `pentest-blackboard`"); no bundle files are needed for this self-contained discipline skill.

Specificity

Lists several concrete verification actions — "confirmed Fact须证据", "tentative表线索", "负结果也落库", "单步验证零容忍" — naming domain-specific behaviors rather than vague language, though the dense jargon leaves minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both the "what" (verification discipline rules) and an explicit "Use when" trigger clause are present; the when could be more specific and the what is rule-dense rather than cleanly enumerated capabilities.

Trigger Term Quality

The "Use when writing project facts, validating findings, or avoiding hallucination" clause supplies three natural trigger phrases with good coverage, but misses common domain synonyms like "confirming vulnerabilities" or "pentest findings".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pentest/红队 verification niche with distinctive triggers (confirmed vs tentative facts, negative-result recording) is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against general anti-hallucination skills.