Conciseness

The body is dense rule-text that assumes competence (no explanation of what storyboarding is), but several rules are restated across sections: "不按固定镜数/不追求固定数量" appears in both 按原文规模规划生成段 and 审阅建议与保存; cut-point inheritance appears as "continuous 镜逐字复制前镜 cut_out" and again as "后台从前镜完整末态、交镜接点逐字继承"; "保留原剧情与对白/不删原剧情和对白" is repeated three times. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'. Not 4 because the cross-section repetition is noticeable rather than minor.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: the shot_design object defines exact fields (focus, viewer_gain, axis, transition with enumerated values "opening / continuous / time_change / space_change"), state keys use a concrete format with examples ("匠人.悬挂姿态", "布翼.倾角"), the incremental contract specifies "state_delta 只列真实变化后的已有属性，无变化写 {}", and the delivery format is exact (起始构图、镜头1起的连续编号导演描述、source_text). Not 5 because there is no worked example of a complete filled panel/shot_design instance, and the 逐场原文覆盖表 is mandated but never shown.

Workflow Clarity

The sections follow a coherent pipeline (适用范围 → 叙事和镜头设计 → 生成段规划 → 跨镜契约 → 细化和首帧 → 审阅 → 媒体提示词 → 交付), with explicit checkpoints such as "上一镜末态是否等于下一镜首态" and "交付前按原剧本建立逐场原文覆盖表，并逐镜核对实际导演稿", plus repair guidance ("先修对应镜", "真实结果不符时进入对应镜头复核"). Not 5 because the sequence is conveyed through section order and prose rather than an explicit stepwise enumeration, and some checkpoints (e.g. the video motion/sound acceptance) are deferred without a defined loop.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so all ~90 dense lines live inline in SKILL.md with clear section headers but no navigation to detail files. Self-contained material like the shot_design field spec, the incremental-contract wire format, and the asset-version rules could plausibly be split into reference files for the pipeline it targets. This matches 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'. Not 4 because the file is well beyond 50 lines and the entire contract spec is inlined; not 2 because section organization is genuinely good.

Specificity

The description "专业镜头设计与动作接点，把叙事重点、画面焦点和物理状态落实为可审阅镜头契约" names the domain and a single composite action chain (designing shots and codifying action cut-points into a reviewable contract), which matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions'. It is not 4 because it does not enumerate several distinct specific actions, and not 2 because the actions given are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (turning narrative focus, frame focus, and physical state into reviewable shot contracts), but there is no 'when' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 2 because the 'what' is concrete rather than vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "镜头设计", "动作接点", and "镜头契约" are relevant domain keywords, but the most natural phrases a user would actually say — "分镜", "storyboard", "运镜" — are absent from the description, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. Not 4 because several natural trigger terms users would use are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche of professional shot design with explicit cut-point and physical-state contracts for generated video segments is fairly distinct, with phrases like "动作接点" and "可审阅镜头契约" carving out a specific territory. Minor overlap risk remains with generic cinematography or video-prompt skills since no explicit triggers delineate the boundary, so it does not reach 5.