Conciseness

The body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining SEL concepts Claude already knows, but a few points are restated across sections (e.g., the 受挫—反馈—重试 path appears both in embedding point 3 and the quality-gate list), keeping it just below the anchor 5 'every token earns its place' bar.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout: declare two one-sentence goals, pick 1-2 capabilities, and embed at four points each mapped to a concrete page type (slide/interactive) with specific behaviors and defined agent roles; the rubric explicitly does not penalize the absence of code in an instruction-only skill when guidance is this actionable.

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence (declare parallel goals -> pick capabilities -> embed at four points -> quality gates -> boundary) with an explicit validation check ('答不出就删除') and an ask_user feedback loop for scope, but the checkpoints are design-oriented rather than a rigid validate-fix-retry loop, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, requires no external references, and is organized into clearly headed sections (先声明平行目标, 四个 SEL 嵌入点, 多智能体的作用, 质量与安全关口, 边界), satisfying the simple-skill exception that allows a 5 with well-organized sections and no nested references.

Specificity

The single concrete action 'Infuse...as a parallel learning goal' is paired with an enumerated list of specific capability targets (emotional awareness, self-management, empathy, etc.), matching anchor 4; not 5 because there is only one distinct action verb rather than multiple, and not 3 because several specific capabilities are named.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('Infuse SEL into a concept-centered OpenMAIC classroom as a parallel learning goal') and when ('Use when the user asks to add... to a subject lesson'), with concrete trigger phrases plus a negative boundary, matching the anchor 5 example.

Trigger Term Quality

'Use when the user asks to add emotional awareness, self-management, empathy, collaboration, relationship skills, resilience, or responsible decision-making' gives good coverage of natural educator terms, but it relies on the canonical SEL taxonomy and omits everyday synonyms (e.g., teamwork, kindness, emotional regulation), placing it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (SEL as a parallel goal in subject lessons) and adds an explicit negative boundary ('Do not use when SEL itself should be the standalone content of a counseling, advisory, psychology, or homeroom lesson'), giving distinct triggers with minimal conflict risk.