Conciseness

The body is dominated by tight tables and terse rules (文件用途表、读取 vs 写入决策矩阵、反模式表) that respect Claude's competence, matching the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor. It is not 5 because the create-plan-first rule is repeated across 快速开始, 新计划的创建约定, and 关键规则 #1, and the 列出已保存的计划 section is somewhat padded.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: copy-paste-ready invocations for session-catchup.py (both bash and PowerShell variants with argument patterns), `sh "$PWF_SKILL_DIR/scripts/check-complete.sh" --validate path/to/task_plan.md`, and set-active-plan --list/--archive/--restore. Not 5 because the first and most important step, `resolve-plan-dir.sh`, is described only abstractly ("结合该主机的 PLAN_ID 和 PWF_PLAN_ROOT") with no concrete command line, and PWF_SKILL_DIR export is described but never given as a command.

Workflow Clarity

Explicit validation checkpoints exist ("实现前和修改阶段结构后必须通过检查" via check-complete.sh --validate), a feedback loop for error recovery (三次失败协议), and a checklist (五问重启测试); archive operations require preview plus user consent. Not 5 because the overall sequence is distributed across 第一步, 快速开始, and 新计划的创建约定 rather than one coherent ordered workflow, forcing the reader to synthesize the order.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: the `scripts/` references resolve, but the three template links ([templates/task_plan.md](templates/task_plan.md), findings.md, progress.md) and [plan-inventory.md](plan-inventory.md) point to files that do not exist in the bundle, breaking navigation for the skill's core getting-started path ("复制这些模板开始使用"). Additionally, many shipped scripts (attest-plan, phase-status, plan-doctor, ledger-append/summary, inject-plan, gate-stop) are never referenced, so bundle content is undiscoverable. This matches the minimal-structure/broken-navigation anchor more than the 'references present but not clearly signaled' anchor at 3.

Specificity

Names concrete artifacts ("将 task_plan.md、findings.md 和 progress.md 保存在磁盘上"), hook behavior ("生命周期钩子会注入选定的项目规划上下文"), and specific script modes ("session-catchup.py --metadata"、"--replay 可输出有长度限制且由 nonce 框定的同项目摘录"). It falls short of 5 because capability coverage is tilted toward boundary disclaimers while several bundled capabilities (init-session, check-complete validation, plan inventory/archiving) go unmentioned.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: what ("用于多步骤 AI 代理工作的持久化文件规划系统" with the three named planning files and hook injection) and when ("适用于研究或需要 5 次以上工具调用的工作" plus the explicit 触发词 list). This matches the anchor for clearly and explicitly answering both with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

The explicit trigger list "任务规划、项目计划、制定计划、分解任务、多步骤规划、进度跟踪、文件规划、帮我规划、拆解项目" provides comprehensive coverage of natural user phrasing with multiple synonyms (制定计划/帮我规划, 分解任务/拆解项目). This clearly matches the anchor for comprehensive natural-term coverage rather than the 'a few natural terms missing' anchor at 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The persistent-file-planning niche with named files and hooks is mostly distinct, but broad trigger phrases like "制定计划" and "帮我规划" carry minor overlap risk with other planning or task-management skills. Not 5 because those generic planning phrases could fire for related skills; not 3 because the described mechanism (persistent planning files + lifecycle hooks) is clearly distinguishable.