Conciseness

The body is lean, directive, and assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations), matching 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' — the missing-bundle rule is stated three times (role boundary, 'Hard gate', and workflow step 2) and could be consolidated. It is not a 5 because of that redundancy, and not a 3 since there is no genuine padding or teaching of known concepts.

Actionability

It provides concrete, executable artifacts: a verbatim filename contract with two real examples, a complete copy-paste YAML frontmatter block, a fixed 10-section structure, and explicit write-target branches. It falls short of 5 because some steps remain directive rather than verifiable (e.g., 'Each section must answer a real question', 'cite actual evidence' give no acceptance criteria).

Workflow Clarity

The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced with a strong validation checkpoint (the 'Hard gate' on missing analysis bundle, with route-back to `results-analysis`) and edge-case handling ('Use `r00` only as a temporary placeholder'), matching 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. It is not a 5 because there is no post-write verification step (e.g., confirming the filename matches the contract or that linked notes resolve).

Progressive Disclosure

References are well-signaled at point of use ('Read `references/report-naming.md` before finalizing the filename'), listed at the bottom, and one level deep — six of seven referenced files verified on disk. It is not a 5 because `examples/example-results-report.md` is referenced in the 'Reference files' list but does not exist (no `examples/` directory in the bundle), a broken navigation path.

Specificity

The description names the domain clearly ('turning completed experiment artifacts into a structured, decision-oriented research report') but describes essentially one composite action; it never mentions the skill's other concrete capabilities (figure interpretation, limitations analysis, Obsidian write-back), so it matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' rather than the level-4 'lists several specific actions'.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ('turning completed experiment artifacts into a structured, decision-oriented research report') and when ('This skill should be used when the user asks to...') with concrete quoted trigger phrases, matching the level-5 anchor exactly. It is not a 4 because the 'when' guidance is already maximally explicit with verbatim trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes multiple natural phrases users would say — "write an experiment report", "summarize experimental results", "do experiment retrospection", "write a results report" — plus Chinese synonyms ("写实验总结报告", "写实验复盘") and a descriptive clause for the 'mentions' case, giving comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche (post-experiment reporting) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling skill — 'It assumes strict analysis should come from `results-analysis` first' — so trigger overlap risk is minimal. Voice is third-person ('This skill should be used'), so no specificity penalty applies.