Conciseness

The six-category examples earn their tokens, but the "常见错误与改写示例" section repeats four examples already shown in categories 1️⃣–6️⃣, and the closing metadata/promo footer ("最后更新: 2025-11-07", "花叔出品 | 公众号「花叔」| 30万+粉丝") is pure padding. Time-sensitive dates ("2025.05-2025.10") and a machine-specific absolute path (/Users/alchain/...) are inlined rather than isolated. Not score 4 because the duplication and irrelevant footer are more than minor trimmable instances.

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact AI-cliché phrases to grep for ("在当今"、"综上所述"), quantified thresholds (sentences ≤30 chars, detection <30%, headings every 300-500 chars), abundant ❌/✅ before/after pairs, and a copy-paste-ready Grep parameter block for the material library with worked keyword examples. Not score 4 because the examples cover the common rewrite cases comprehensively and the commands are directly executable.

Workflow Clarity

The three passes (第一遍内容 → 第二遍风格 → 第三遍细节 → 最终检查) are clearly sequenced, each with its own checklist and method, plus a final read-through pass. Not score 5 because the core success metric (AI检测率低于30%) is marked only "（可选）" so validation of the primary goal is not a required checkpoint, and "第二遍" is split across two disconnected sections. Not score 3 because checklists and sequence are genuinely present, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

References exist and are clearly signaled in a dedicated "参考资源" section, but they are absolute paths on one user's machine (/写作参考/...) rather than portable bundle files — no references/ directory exists in the skill. The ~300-line body inlines the full six-category rewrite guide that the referenced 审校指南 already covers, so content that could be split stays inline. Not score 2 because the structure is well-sectioned and references are not buried; not score 4 because the split between SKILL.md and external material is not cleanly organized.

Specificity

The description names the domain and method concretely — "三遍审校降低AI检测率，让文章更有人味" — but stops at 1-2 actions (three-pass proofreading, reduce detection rate) without unpacking what the passes do, and "让文章更有人味" is vague. Not score 4 because it does not list several distinct specific actions; not score 2 because the actions given are concrete, not generic.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("三遍审校降低AI检测率，让文章更有人味") and when ("当用户提到...时使用") with concrete quoted trigger phrases, matching the anchor for clearly and explicitly answering both. Not score 4 because the 'when' clause is already fully explicit with specific triggers, not merely adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Five quoted natural trigger phrases — "AI味太重"、"像AI写的"、"降低AI检测率"、"审校"、"自然一些" — comprehensively cover the synonym space a user would actually say, exactly matching the top anchor's coverage of natural terms and synonyms. Not score 4 because no common variation is obviously missing for this domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (AI-tone removal / humanizing articles) is distinct and the AI-specific triggers ("AI味太重"、"像AI写的") are unlikely to fire other skills. Not score 5 because the bare trigger "审校" (proofreading) is generic and could overlap with a general editing/proofreading skill; not score 3 because the overlap is limited to that single term.