Conciseness

Well-sectioned and free of concept-padding, but the long worked example output block and some repeated refusal rationale in Key Rules/Refusals add tokens that could be trimmed, keeping it just short of fully lean.

Actionability

Provides a copy-paste Task prompt template, an exact grep self-check command, and a concrete refusal-handling taxonomy, but the sub-agent JSON schema it depends on is delegated to an unresolved external file, leaving a minor gap.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps with explicit halt-checkpoints (missing state/draft), a grep self-check, self_check.any_contamination_signal validation, and a refusal feedback loop (re-prompt on blocked_contaminated_input), matching explicit validation + error-recovery.

Progressive Disclosure

Good section structure (Overview/Constants/Inputs/Workflow/Key Rules/Refusals/Integration) with a clearly signaled one-level reference to the blind sub-agent skill, but that reference does not resolve within the bundle and some inlined contract detail could live in the referenced file.

Specificity

Names the domain ('打 rubric 分') and 1-2 concrete actions ('只在控制台输出，不写文件，不预测'), but does not comprehensively list the scoring capabilities; the 'when' is given as a role note rather than a fuller action set.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (给单篇稿子打 rubric 分) and 'when' via concrete trigger phrases ('触发词：…'), so both halves are clearly present rather than merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Provides comprehensive natural trigger terms in two languages with synonyms as quoted user utterances — '打分这篇 [path]', 'score this [path]', '给这稿子打分', '先打分看看' — covering how a user would actually invoke it.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche — single-draft lightweight scoring — and is explicitly contrasted with cheat-predict, with distinct triggers, giving minimal overlap risk.