Conciseness

The body is dominated by operational scoring rules Claude does not already know (explicit point thresholds, risk cutoffs, output templates) with no teaching of basic concepts, so it mostly earns its tokens. Minor trimming is possible: the 8-item "主要功能模块" overview duplicates the later execution steps, and the ~80-line report template is long, placing it at 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete — exact point mappings (e.g. 久坐时间 ">8小时：10分"), named data fields (sedentary_time_daily), a full output template, and error messages. Minor gaps remain: the composite formula "综合风险分数 = max(久坐风险, 视屏风险, 倒班风险, 劳损风险, 压力风险)" references shift/strain/stress risk scores that are never defined, and ergonomic sub-scores (e.g. "可调节性（0-5分）") give point ranges without criteria for awarding points — hence 4 rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps (数据读取 → 风险评估 → 人机工程评估 → 筛查 → 关联分析 → 报告) with data validation checkpoints in step 1 (检查文件是否存在, 验证数据结构完整性) and a dedicated error-handling section covering missing files, insufficient data, and high-risk alerts. This is not a destructive or batch operation, so no cap applies; it falls just short of 5 because there is no explicit recovery loop (what to do after validation fails mid-analysis).

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized with headers, but the ~380-line body inlines everything — full risk-scoring rubrics, screening recommendation tables per work type, and the complete report template — with no reference files at all. The detailed scoring rubrics and report template clearly could be split into separate reference files, matching the 3 anchor (content that should be separate is inline) rather than 4 (most content appropriately placed in a bundle).

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "分析职业健康数据" (analyze occupational health data), "识别工作相关健康风险" (identify work-related health risks), "评估职业健康状况" (assess occupational health status), "提供个性化职业健康建议" (provide personalized advice), plus cross-module correlation analysis — but omits capabilities the body covers (ergonomic assessment, disease screening, trend analysis, alerting), so it is not comprehensive. It sits above the 3 anchor (only 1–2 concrete actions) and below the 5 anchor (comprehensive coverage).

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (occupational health analysis, risk identification, assessment, personalized advice), but there is no 'Use when…' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the second sentence only describes additional capability. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain keywords are present (职业健康, 工作相关, 睡眠, 运动, 心理健康), but common natural phrasings a user would actually say — such as 职业病 (occupational disease), 久坐 (sedentary/sitting), 人机工程/工位 (ergonomics/workstation), 颈肩痛 (neck/shoulder pain) — are absent. This matches the 3 anchor (some relevant keywords but missing common variations) rather than 4 (good coverage with only a few missing).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The core occupational-health niche is fairly distinct, but explicitly claiming "支持与睡眠、运动、心理健康等其他健康数据的关联分析" (correlation analysis with sleep, exercise, and mental-health data) creates overlap risk with dedicated sleep/fitness/mental-health sibling skills, which could cause it to trigger for those domains. This fits the 3 anchor (somewhat specific but could still overlap) better than 4 (only minor overlap with closely related skills).