Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence (no basic-concept explanations), with only minor trims available, e.g. the ground-truth evaluation rule repeated in both the Phase 2.5 review prompt and Key Rules, and rationale asides like "Running instances cost money every second — don't leave them idle". It fits anchor 4 rather than 5 because of this small redundancy, and is well above the noticeable-verbosity anchor at 3.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready throughout: exact commands ("nvidia-smi --query-gpu=index,memory.used,memory.total --format=csv,noheader", "git clone <BASE_REPO> base_repo/", "modal token verify"), a complete MCP review prompt with config, a concrete failure-to-fix taxonomy ("OOM → reduce batch size", "NaN/divergence → reduce learning rate"), and full output templates. The delegation placeholders like "/aris-run-experiment [experiment commands]" are appropriate for an orchestration skill, so it meets the fully-executable anchor rather than stopping at 4.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation at every stage: a mandatory compute guard, a self-review checklist ("Are all hyperparameters from EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md reflected in argparse?"), a sanity verification list, and feedback loops (max-3-attempt debug loop with codex rescue escalation, max-2-round critical-issue review loop). This matches the anchor requiring explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists; the neighboring anchor 4 lacks exactly these.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the body contains no broken or nested file references; sections are well-organized with constants, phases, and key rules clearly separated. It fits anchor 4 rather than 5 because the ~340-line body keeps sizable template blocks (the Phase 2.5 codex prompt, the results-summary template) fully inline with no one-level-deep reference split, though all of it is used on every run so the placement is defensible.

Specificity

"Reads EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md, implements experiment code, deploys to GPU, collects initial results" lists four concrete actions covering the full pipeline, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor at 4.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is "Reads EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md, implements experiment code, deploys to GPU, collects initial results" and the "when" is "Use when user says ... or has an experiment plan ready to execute" with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural bilingual phrases like "implement experiments", "deploy the plan", "从计划到跑实验", plus the state trigger "has an experiment plan ready to execute", give good coverage, but common variants such as "run experiments" or "execute the plan" are missing, so it falls short of the comprehensive-synonyms anchor at 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is distinct (EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md, GPU deployment) with mostly unique triggers, but the standalone word "bridge" is generic and there is minor overlap risk with closely related sibling skills like /aris-run-experiment and /aris-research-pipeline, fitting anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor at 5.