Mostly lean bullet points with no basic-concept filler, but the "Expected Outcomes" section (Territorial expansion, Enemy neutralization, etc.) is largely obvious padding that could be trimmed. Not a 3 because not every token earns its place.

Gives concrete strategic steps and specific historical examples (60,000 troops, 2,000 cavalry, named passes), but the operational guidance stays abstract ("Calculate provisions needed", "Control key passes") without concrete methods. Not a 3 because key operational details are missing; not a 1 because it instructs rather than merely describes.

Clear sequence (Pre-Campaign -> Execution -> Post-Campaign) with a dedicated Verification checklist, but for destructive campaign operations the checks are terminal rather than inline feedback loops (validate -> fix -> retry). Not a 3 because there are no explicit error-recovery feedback loops, which the rubric caps at 2 for destructive operations.

A single, well-organized SKILL.md with clear section headers and no need for external bundle files (none exist), matching the guideline that well-organized sections with no required references can score 3. Not a 2 because navigation and structure are clear.

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: "terrain assessment", "supply logistics for 60,000+ troops", "alliance coordination", "siege tactics", and "garrison establishment". Not a 2 because it enumerates several distinct capabilities rather than naming only a domain and a few actions.

Explicitly answers both what ("Covers terrain assessment ... siege tactics ... garrison establishment") and when ("Use when planning military campaigns from intelligence through post-victory consolidation"). Not a 2 because the trigger clause is explicit rather than implied.

"planning military campaigns", "siege tactics", and "supply logistics" are natural terms, but coverage is thin on common variations (e.g. battle plans, war strategy, troop deployment). Not a 3 because it lacks good coverage of the variations a user might naturally say.

A clear niche (classical military campaign planning) with distinctive triggers including the classical Chinese phrases, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not a 2 because the scope is specific rather than broadly overlapping.