Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes competence: compact tables for inputs, states, error handling, and skill boundaries, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The status-meaning tables encode project-specific conventions Claude could not know, so they earn their place; minor tightening is possible (e.g. the three 状态流转 tables could be condensed), which keeps it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Concrete, near-copy-paste guidance throughout: full MCP parameter blocks for `stories_get` and `stories_create`, exact save paths (docs/reqs/product/<短标题>.prototype.md), filename rules (4-12 中文字符), role prefixes ([设计]/[前端]/[后端]), and a final output template. Minor gap: the `stories_update` calls that advance status (e.g. 推进到 `for approve`/`approved`/`done`) never get an explicit field block, matching anchor 4 (mostly executable with minor gaps) rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step 执行流程 is clearly sequenced, begins with an entry-point triage table, gates every TAPD write behind explicit user confirmation ("先向用户展示计划变更，确认后再调用 MCP"), and includes an error-handling table with a retry-once-then-manual-fallback feedback loop and skip-reason recording. This matches anchor 5: clear sequence, explicit validation checkpoints, and feedback loops for error recovery.

Progressive Disclosure

Five reference files, all verified to exist, each exactly one level deep and loaded at the workflow step that needs it (e.g. "执行前读取 references/product-discovery-guide.md", "读取 references/role-ticket-splitting.md"), plus a purpose table (参考文件) at the end for navigation. Workflow-critical content (states, MCP fields) is appropriately inline — matching anchor 5 (clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references).

Specificity

The description richly names the domain and its concrete artifacts ("页面原型 Spec, BKUI 原型, HTML 原型, 角色拆单, 产品父单") but states no actions the skill performs — no verbs like draft, generate, or create. This matches anchor 3 (domain named, actions minimal/not comprehensive); it is above 2 because the enumerated concepts are specific rather than generic, and below 4 because anchor 4 requires 'several specific actions', and none are listed.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and maximally concrete ("Use when work starts before a complete PRD exists, including…"), but the 'what' is never stated — the description contains no statement of what the skill does (draft PRDs? create TAPD tickets? generate prototypes?). Scoring only what is explicitly stated, the missing 'what' places this at anchor 3; it cannot reach 4/5 because those anchors require both what and when explicitly present.

Trigger Term Quality

It provides comprehensive bilingual trigger coverage with natural synonyms users would actually say: "产品调研, 用户调研, 竞品分析, 老板需求, 想法建单, 原型评审" alongside "product discovery, product research, PRD drafting, role story split". This matches anchor 5 (comprehensive natural terms including synonyms); nothing significant is missing for this domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive TAPD-specific terms ("产品父单", "角色拆单", "BKUI 原型", "设计子单") carve a clear niche with the boundary "before a complete PRD exists". Minor overlap risk remains with generic PRD/prototype-drafting requests since 'TAPD' itself never appears in the description — matching anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk).