Conciseness

The body is dense and table-driven with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but '步骤 4 更新状态' and '步骤 9 更新 meta.yaml.phase 为 committed' duplicate each other, and section 2 contains misnumbered subsections '3.1/3.2' — minor instances that could be trimmed, so anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Concrete commands and formats throughout ('git diff --numstat <baseline>', the stories_update parameter table with v_status="for test", '[cost-reconcile] jsonl_events=<N>...', and a full commit.md template). The gap is step 7's default path ('精确暂存 Code scope + WORKDIR 产物'), which specifies no exact git add command — mostly executable with minor gaps, matching anchor 4.

Workflow Clarity

A fixed explicit ordering ('1.5 对账 → 2 成本汇总 → 3 更新 stats → 6 写 commit.md → 7 git commit'), explicit validation gates with fix-and-retry feedback loops (cost reconciliation by ts_event dedup; the commit.md gate '任一缺失或为空则补写完整后再继续'), non-blocking error handling for TAPD failure, and a full idempotency/re-entrancy table — matching the top anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

References are well-signaled one level deep via a dedicated table with purpose and '何时读取' columns, and inline content (stats table, commit.md template) is appropriately placed in SKILL.md. However, the referenced files ('../references/commit-conventions.md', '../references/context-and-meta-template.md') use parent-relative paths and no references/ directory exists in the bundle, leaving them unverifiable — a minor organization gap that keeps this at anchor 4.

Specificity

The description lists five concrete actions — '变更统计、成本数据汇总、构建 commit 信息、git 提交、TAPD 状态更新' — which comprehensively covers the stage's capabilities, matching the top anchor rather than leaving minor gaps.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (the five enumerated duties), but there is no 'Use when' clause or equivalent trigger guidance — only a weak positional implication ('是 pipeline 中唯一在主会话执行的子 skill'). Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Core terms appear in both languages ('提交/commit', 'git 提交', 'TAPD', '流水线/pipeline'), but the phrasing is dominated by orchestration-internal jargon ('主会话', '不走 subagent', '唯一在主会话执行的子 skill') that a user would not naturally say, and common variations like '提交代码' are missing. It sits between anchors 3 and 4, closer to 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The TAPD pipeline commit-stage niche is clear and mostly distinct, but '构建 commit 信息' carries minor overlap risk with generic commit-message skills, so anchor 4 fits better than 5.