Conciseness

Lean and well-structured with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; only minor instances (the explanatory mapping table) could be trimmed further, so it sits just below the leanest anchor.

Actionability

Provides a concrete six-step procedure and a fill-in output template with specific fields, but the guidance is procedural rather than copy-paste executable, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced multi-step process (列信息源 → 收集 → 集中 → 返回 → 检验 → 再来一轮) with explicit validation checkpoints and a feedback loop ('再来一轮，直到没有新的重要分歧').

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is reasonable, but the body references original-texts.md which does not exist in the bundle, and there is no references/ directory — a dangling, mis-signaled reference prevents a higher score.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'collect scattered input', 'synthesize it into a coherent plan', 'take it back for alignment and validation', 'iterate' — with only minor coverage gaps, matching the 'several specific actions' anchor.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (collect, synthesize, take back, validate, iterate) and 'when' via a concrete 'Trigger when... skip when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger phrases users would say ('inputs conflict', 'feedback must be consolidated', 'needs sign-off from real users', 'designing in isolation') with good coverage, though a few common synonyms are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (multi-source synthesis plus return-validation) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the related investigation-first skill, giving it minimal conflict risk.