Conciseness

The body is a dense rule-per-line style guide where every line is a project-specific convention, banned-word list (一键、温馨提示、Unleash、seamless), or concrete default (Get Started → Continue → Done) that Claude could not infer. Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows and no padding is detectable, so every token earns its place.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: copy-paste templates and good/bad pairs (已 + 动词 / Saved; 至少 8 位 / Use at least 8 characters; `已选 {count} 项`), concrete commands (`yarn i18n:*`, `translate="no"`), specific length budgets (中文 2–4 字、英文 1–3 词), and defined delivery formats (原文 → 改后 table with one-line reasons).

Workflow Clarity

Real checkpoints exist — 先看项目已有约定 opens with a pre-flight step, 删完大声读一遍 is a self-check, 渲染前检查 is an explicit pre-render validation list, and 抽样检查 is a sampling review — but the body is organized by topic (删什么/不能删的/按组件) rather than as an explicitly sequenced workflow, so the order of operations must be inferred. It sits between anchor 4 and anchor 5 and leans 4 because the sequence is implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The final section clearly signals one-level-deep references with read conditions ("例子和反例见 examples.md…规则出处和取舍见 sources.md。只在需要核对出处或遇到冲突时读后者"), and both referenced files exist in references/ and contain exactly what is claimed (calibration examples; source guidelines). The SKILL.md stays a lean rule overview while examples and provenance are appropriately split out.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions (编写、精修、审查、给产品内 AI 生成文案写约束) and comprehensively enumerates the component types covered: 按钮、标题、表单、报错、空状态、toast、确认弹窗、设置项和 i18n 源文案. This matches the comprehensive-coverage anchor; there is no meaningful coverage gap that would justify a 4.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the what is the full action list, and the when is the explicit "用于…" clause with concrete quoted trigger phrases. This is the anchor-5 pattern (both what and when with concrete triggers), well beyond anchor 4's "when could be more explicit".

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes actual user utterances as triggers — "改下文案"、"这个报错怎么写"、"界面字太多"、"去 AI slop"、"审一下这些 key" — in both Chinese and English, which is the natural phrasing users would say rather than technical jargon. Coverage across both languages of the domain leaves no common variation missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (in-product UI copy) is distinct and the description actively reduces conflict risk by handing off adjacent work to named sibling skills: 长段落的 Slack、文档和文章交给 chinese-writing；翻译交给 gemini-translate. No plausible wrong-skill trigger remains.