Conciseness

The ~650-line body never over-explains known concepts, but contains real duplication that could be tightened: parameter inference rules for workspace_id/reviewers appear both in '参数推断与回退规则' and again in 执行流程 §1.1–1.3, and the owner-restore logic is restated in §3.4, §4.1, §4.2, §4.5 and check-status. This matches the 3 anchor (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than 4, where over-explanation would be only minor.

Actionability

Highly actionable throughout — concrete MCP parameters ('stories_get' with an explicit fields list), verbatim comment templates, a YAML metadata schema, structured verdict enums, and an error-handling table. It falls short of 5 because several operations (status transition to 'for approve', comment creation, and the §4.2 comment reads) omit the specific MCP tool name, leaving minor execution gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Each mode has a clearly numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (§3.1 校验发起条件 before any write, §4.1 parent-status check first) and robust feedback loops (retry-once on comment-read failure, blocked → answered_questions → re-call, needs_rework → upstream re-run with baseline snapshots), plus verdict branches A–E and explicit end conditions. This matches the 5 anchor with validation steps, error-recovery loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with clear section headers per mode and a well-signaled reference table (file, purpose, '何时读取') for the single external reference, which is one level deep. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the monolithic 650-line body inlines material (comment templates, the question schema, metadata examples) that could be split into reference files, and no bundle files exist to absorb it.

Specificity

The description enumerates five concrete actions — '发起评审、@指定评审人、读取父单和子单评论、汇总待处理意见' and driving '重新澄清或重新拆分' until the approval rule is met — giving comprehensive coverage of the workflow. This matches the score-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions) rather than 4, which expects minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both 'what' (the enumerated review-loop actions) and 'when' are explicitly present: 'Use this skill whenever the user mentions 需求评审, ... or any workflow involving TAPD story review after clarification or evaluation.' The when-clause is explicit with concrete trigger phrases, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4 where the when could be more specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes seven natural trigger terms with Chinese, English, and mixed variants ('需求评审, review需求, 评审澄清结果, 评审拆单结果, TAPD评论处理, 需求review闭环, 需求待审批') plus a general catch clause. Coverage is good but a few natural phrasings a user might say (e.g. 'TAPD 评审', '处理评审意见') are missing, so it sits at 4 rather than the comprehensive 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche ('TAPD story review after clarification or evaluation') with distinct triggers, but it shares the TAPD/pipeline domain with sibling skills (the body references tapd-story-evaluation), so a broad mention like '需求评审' carries minor overlap risk with closely related skills. This is the 4 anchor, not 5's minimal-conflict profile.