Conciseness

The ~40-line body is lean with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but the '好问题的定义标准' section overlaps conceptually with the '验收条件' template, and '输出格式' partially restates the numbered instructions. Efficient overall with minor instances that could be trimmed; not 5 because of this duplication.

Actionability

Concrete numbered steps, a fill-in-the-blank acceptance template, an explicit output format, and a fully worked React-vs-Vue example make the guidance mostly executable. Not 5: the example's Dimension Analysis covers only one dimension with one reasoning form ('目的-手段实践推理') while step 3 demands an independent in-depth analysis of every dimension, leaving a minor gap in the demonstrated procedure.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-4 are clearly sequenced and the 验收条件 template acts as an implicit checkpoint, and the task is non-destructive text restructuring so no validation cap applies. Not 5: there is no explicit final validation step (e.g., re-checking the rewrite against 清晰/结构化/可操作 before output) — the checkpoints are present but implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and content is organized into well-labeled sections (template, instructions, criteria, example, output format), which per the simple-skill scoring note qualifies for the top score.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions in third-person voice — 'extracting the core objective, identifying comparison dimensions, and applying structured reasoning' and 'Produces a rewritten problem statement with explicit comparison dimensions, a structured evaluation framework, and a decision-ready output format' — giving comprehensive, non-generic coverage of the skill's behavior.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: the 'what' ('Transforms vague or ill-defined questions into... good problems... Produces a rewritten problem statement...') and the 'when' ('Use when a user wants to compare multiple options... or asks questions like...') with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4, because the 'when' clause is already fully explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes the exact natural phrases users would say: 'which is better', 'pros and cons', 'help me decide', 'how should I choose', or 'what are the trade-offs', plus variations like 'compare multiple options' and 'evaluate trade-offs'. This is comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The problem-reformulation niche is distinct, but decision-flavored triggers like 'help me decide' and 'make a decision between alternatives' create minor overlap risk with a general decision-support or comparison skill. Not 5 because the trigger set is not cleanly separated from generic decision-help requests.