Conciseness

The ~160-line body carries substantive methodology (three-phase framework, operating protocol, error table) but is padded with extensive Mao quotes and attitude/mindstate bullets that could be tightened; it is mostly efficient but includes unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

Provides a concrete operating protocol — output a stage-assessment table with defined fields, pick one of three stages, name a '局部进攻点', set checkpoints — plus a corrective error table, giving mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clear six-step method flow (第一步–第六步) is sequenced, with stage-transition conditions and a re-call checkpoint ('设置阶段检查点…重新调用此 skill 评估阶段') providing most validation checkpoints; minor gaps remain versus a hard verify-before-proceed gate.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and references are one level deep, but the body cites 'original-texts.md' for detailed source material while no bundle file by that name exists in references/scripts/assets — a minor organization gap.

Specificity

Names the domain (long-horizon difficult work) and lists several concrete actions — 'divide the effort into stages', 'keep strategic confidence', 'accumulate small wins into overall victory' — with only minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (divide into stages, keep confidence, accumulate small wins) and when via concrete trigger clauses — '触发：当…时调用' and 'Trigger when the work is long-horizon…' — matching the anchor-5 example.

Trigger Term Quality

Good coverage of natural trigger terms ('long-horizon', 'long-term effort', 'phased plan', 'endurance', '战略耐心', '分阶段推进') with explicit signal list; a few synonyms/extensions are missing, so it falls short of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger is narrowly scoped to unwinnable-quickly, long-horizon phased-strategy situations, giving it a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against general planning skills.