Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — no space is spent explaining concepts Claude already knows, and the curl snippets, Codex config, and report template all earn their tokens. It is not a 5 because of minor redundancy: 'always include the last 6 months of arXiv' appears in both Phase B and the Important Rules, and the Constants/optional-Codex notes repeat the fallback twice.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact curl commands for the arXiv and Semantic Scholar APIs, a copy-paste Codex config ("model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"), a verbatim sub-agent brief, minimum search counts ('at least 3 different query formulations per claim'), and a complete output report template. This matches the anchor for copy-paste-ready commands covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Phases A–D are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints and error handling: an availability check gates C1 vs C2, a WebSearch-unavailable fallback gives direct API calls, C2 includes reconciliation ('every overlap raised must be answered with a concrete difference or accepted as prior work'), and a confidence cap (never above 7/10 on the same-model path) guards the weaker route. Clear sequence with explicit validation and feedback loops, matching anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned file (Constants, Phases A–D, Important Rules) where all inline content is directly needed for the workflow, so it sits above anchor 3. It is not a 5: the ~120-line body keeps everything inline (report template, API snippets) with no split into reference files, and the only nod to external material is a passing mention of the 'aris-arxiv' and 'aris-semantic-scholar' skills rather than well-signaled one-level-deep references.

Specificity

"Verify research idea novelty against recent literature" names the domain and one concrete action but does not enumerate the sub-actions performed (multi-source search, cross-model review, structured report). It fits the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor; a 4 would require several specific actions listed.

Completeness

Clearly answers both questions: what ("Verify research idea novelty against recent literature") and when ("Use when user says ... or wants to verify a research idea is novel before implementing") with concrete trigger phrases. This matches anchor 5; it is above anchor 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and specific rather than generic.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural bilingual trigger phrases — "查新", "novelty check", "有没有人做过", "check novelty" — that users would actually say, but misses common English variants like "has anyone done this", "is this new", or "prior work". Good coverage with a few natural terms missing, matching anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Research-novelty verification is a distinct niche with dedicated triggers ("查新", "novelty check", "有没有人做过") that are unlikely to fire for generic literature-search or paper-writing skills. Clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5.