Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — tables for routing, JSON consumption, and re-entry rules; exact field names ('meta.yaml.implement_rounds.completed'); hard limits ('最多 3 个 round'); and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not score 5 because there is minor duplication: the retry/rollback rules stated in '执行流程' are restated in the '可重入约定' table and repeated '严禁' notes, which could be consolidated.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: exact agent routing per tech_type, precise meta.yaml mutations, a copy-paste rollback snippet ('BASELINE=$(yq ...); git checkout "${BASELINE}" -- ...; git clean -fd ...'), explicit forbidden commands, and a three-way fail decision table. Not score 5 because the core mechanism (SUBAGENT_PROMPT rendering) and validation chain live in an external template file ('subagent-prompt-template.md §2.5') that is not in this bundle, leaving minor gaps a reader cannot resolve from the body alone.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (preconditions → inputs → routing → fullstack rounds → consume result JSON → retry/rollback/terminate → status update) with explicit validation checkpoints: round-count guard ('completed = 2：...不应再次进入'), self-check + test runs required in the subagent, Code scope whitelist verification ('校验 Code scope 白名单未被意外缩窄'), and a 3-round cap that forces escalation. Feedback loops for error recovery (retry in place → escalate to rollback re-entry with path-level git restore) are explicit, and the destructive git operations carry explicit guardrails — matching anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: orchestration-level content stays inline, all six external references are one level deep and consolidated in a dedicated '参考资料' section with clear section-level pointers (§2.5, §3, §1.3), and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined. Not score 5 because the references point to '../references/' outside this skill's bundle — no references/ directory exists in the skill — so the referenced files cannot be verified from the skill itself, a minor organization gap; not score 3 because the structure and navigation are otherwise clear and well-signaled.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions: '基于 tasks.md 调用 /speckit.implement 以 TDD 模式完成全部任务' (invoke /speckit.implement based on tasks.md in TDD mode to complete all tasks) plus explicit boundary behaviors ('不创建/切换分支，重试策略为原地修复；仅在跨 attempt 回退时做 git 路径级 checkout'). It names the domain and multiple specific actions with only minor coverage gaps, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5 (the what is concrete but scope detail is deferred to an external reference rather than summarized).

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (run the implementation phase: TDD execution of all tasks via /speckit.implement, in-place retry, path-level git checkout only on cross-attempt rollback), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the opening '迭代执行流水线代码实现阶段' only weakly implies when to use it. Per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit 'when' caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

It contains domain-relevant keywords such as '代码实现' (code implementation), 'TDD', 'tasks.md', '/speckit.implement', and '迭代' (iteration), but these are technical jargon tied to one specific pipeline rather than natural phrases a user would say; common variations and synonyms are missing. Not score 2 because the terms are specific to the domain rather than generic ('works with files'); not score 4 because there is no broader natural-language coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche with distinct triggers — the implementation phase of a specific iteration pipeline, identified by unique artifacts like 'tasks.md', '/speckit.implement', 'attempt', and 'git 路径级 checkout'. These terms are unlikely to collide with other skills, matching anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk).