Conciseness

The body is a lean operational reference — schema tables, state-machine diagrams, CLI signatures, and usage rules — with no concept explanations Claude already knows and no padded sections; every section carries information needed to operate the tool (e.g., the application-status bullets genuinely disambiguate 'passed' vs 'rejected').

Actionability

Every command is a complete executable CLI signature with argument enums and required fields marked ("必填：--name、--type、--firm"), and check-* commands document their JSON output shape. Minor gap: output formats for query-progress/query-stale/query-applications are undocumented, unlike the check commands.

Workflow Clarity

The 使用规则 section sequences both workflows clearly with an explicit pre-write checkpoint ("先用 check-investor 判断是否已记录，已在数据库中则跳过") and idempotent init, plus stale-query sweeps as recurring checkpoints. It stops short of the top anchor because there is no post-write verification or error-recovery loop, which matters for database operations.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized single-file reference with clear sections (location, schema, commands, rules); the bundle is deliberately abstracted behind the PATH wrapper with an explicit instruction not to hand-assemble script paths, and the one external reference (expert-ir 包内 scheduling.md) is clearly signaled and one level deep. Minor gap: the 200-line schema/CLI reference could arguably live in a separate reference file, and the cross-package reference depends on material outside this bundle.

Specificity

The description names concrete components — "投资人档案、接触历史、项目申报三张表" (three tables: investor profiles, contact history, project applications) plus "状态机推进与过期查询" (state-machine progression and stale queries) — several specific items with minor gaps, since the core operations (record/check/update/query) are only weakly implied by "过期查询".

Completeness

The "what" is clear (an IR SQLite database with three tables, state-machine progression, and stale queries), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance — the rubric explicitly caps completeness at 3 for a missing 'when'.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms users would say: "IR", "投资人关系", "投资人档案", "接触历史", "项目申报", "SQLite", "数据库". A few natural synonyms are missing (e.g., 融资/fundraising, 跟进/follow-up, pitch, BP, .db), so it falls short of the comprehensive-synonym anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"IR 投资人关系数据库（SQLite）" carves out a clear niche (investor-relations tracking) that is mostly distinct from generic database/SQLite or CRM skills, with only minor overlap risk; it lacks the fully distinct trigger phrases of the top anchor.