Conciseness

The body is dense policy text with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every line carries domain-specific rules (gate evidence, claim ceilings, tool routes). It falls short of the leanest anchor because the browser-preview/final-consumer rule recurs across the 介质中立, G4, and 停止 sections, and a few sentences could be tightened without loss.

Actionability

Mostly executable instruction-only guidance: concrete production routes ("使用 image_generate 创建整个家族：先生成家族母图，再用 image edit 派生变体"), per-gate inputs, promotion evidence, and failure-return actions, plus pointers to real reference files. The gap that keeps it from the top anchor is load-bearing framework vocabulary ($visual-artifact-design, SELF_REVIEW_ONLY, internal-positive/externally-validated, build_hash, coverage) used without in-bundle definition, and no worked example of a filled route_record.

Workflow Clarity

The G0–G5 gates form a clear sequence where each gate lists 输入, 动作, 晋升证据, claim ceiling, and an explicit 失败返回 feedback loop routing failures back to the earliest causal gate. Validation checkpoints and rollback rules (hash mismatch invalidates prior promotion) are explicit throughout — exactly the top anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview (routing table, gate definitions, delivery boundaries), with two well-signaled, one-level-deep references — [工具能力档案](references/tool-profiles.md) and [领域模式](references/patterns.md) — both of which exist, match their cited purposes, and are linked at the point of need. patterns.md even instructs reading only task-triggered sections; no nested reference chains exist.

Specificity

"设计、编辑、迁移或审查" names four concrete actions, and the description comprehensively enumerates the artifact space (UI 功能图标、公共信息符号、安全与运营符号、设备符号、状态与动效资产、矢量母版、平台适配、理解验证). No concrete capability area of the icon/symbol domain is left uncovered, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (设计、编辑、迁移或审查图标与符号) and an explicit '用于…' scope list provides trigger guidance for each symbol type. However, there is no explicit 'use when the user mentions/requests X' phrasing, so the 'when' could be more explicit — matching anchor 4 rather than 5, and clearly above anchor 3 since the trigger guidance is explicit rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present: 图标、符号、迁移、审查、安全符号、设备符号、状态与动效、平台适配. A few common variations are missing (e.g., logo/标识, 象形图/pictogram, SVG, 图标库), so it falls just short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of the top anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche (icon and symbol design/validation) and actively de-conflicts its borders: "身份标志由品牌领域主导" routes logos to the brand domain, and "注册安全符号默认复用并路由权威责任人" bounds safety-symbol work. Minimal conflict risk with adjacent skills.