Conciseness

The body is a lean, skill-specific state-machine spec with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the mode dispatch table and the reference index both enumerate the same three mode files, and the QA '使用方法' dialogue examples could be tightened — minor trim opportunities that fall just short of 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance — named standard files, state.json fields, per-tier thresholds (7.0/5.0), ordered gates, and a capped retry loop ('不超过 3 轮') — but instructs '先读取 manifest.yaml' and routes templates from 'templates/', neither of which exists in the bundle, a dangling executable path that keeps it below fully executable.

Workflow Clarity

The QA pipeline has an explicit ordered sequence with rationale ('Gate 2 在 Gate 1 之前'), per-tier thresholds, validation gates, and a targeted fallback loop. However, the primary compose/revise '9 步流程' steps live only in reference files and the foundation-file→draft ordering in the body is implicit rather than an enumerated pipeline — clear sequence with minor validation/sequencing gaps, not the explicit end-to-end validation of a 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: all 20 indexed reference files exist, are one level deep, and each row carries an explicit load condition — good structure and easy navigation. The missing 'manifest.yaml' and 'templates/' paths referenced by the body are a minor organization gap that prevents the top score.

Specificity

Names several concrete actions ('Compose, revise, or audit') across three specific artifact types ('research proposals, opening reports, and research plans'), but review-paper/综述 writing — a substantial capability documented in the body — is absent from the description, leaving minor gaps in coverage rather than the comprehensiveness of a 5.

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' ('Compose, revise, or audit research proposals, opening reports, and research plans from supporting evidence') and 'when' with a concrete 'Use for' clause listing trigger phrases in two languages, matching the anchor for clearly and explicitly answering both with concrete triggers; the 4 anchor's weaker 'when' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger terms in both English and the exact Chinese phrases a user would say ('研究计划、开题报告、科研项目申请书'), but misses common variations such as 综述/review papers, 'grant application', or 'thesis proposal'. Good coverage, a few natural terms missing — matches the 4 anchor, above 'some relevant keywords' (3) and below comprehensive synonym coverage (5).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (academic proposal/开题 writing) with distinct bilingual triggers, and an explicit boundary redirect ('use nature-writing for general manuscript sections') that deconflicts the closest related skill — minimal conflict risk rather than the minor overlap of a 4.