Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly novel (「任务成功率下降超过 30%」「工具调用错误率增加 45%」「每分钟 $0.05」), but a few one-liners restate basics Claude already knows — the message-role enumeration 「`system`（开发者规则，通常只有一条且在最前）、`user`（终端用户输入）…」, the ReAct loop description, and Markdown/XML tag semantics. Not 3: these are minor, trimmable instances in an otherwise tight document; not 5: they still exist.

Actionability

Mostly concrete, usable guidance: exact prompt examples (`You MUST answer concisely with fewer than 4 lines`, `NEVER use percentage_based_one_time for refunds and service cancellations. Use fixed_fee instead.`), explicit thresholds (「>60% 可退款、<30% 拒绝任务」), and a layout skeleton in code. Not 5: the Python skeleton's functions (`compress_old_evidence`, `make_status_message`) are undefined templates and the flexibility is not explicitly justified.

Workflow Clarity

Organization is thematic (何时使用 → 核心原则 → 实践模式 1–5 → 常见陷阱) rather than a sequenced procedure; there is no explicit step-by-step workflow with validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the design/audit tasks the skill guides. Not 4: no clear sequence of steps for the reader to follow exists; not 2: the thematic structure and when-to-use section do provide rough guidance.

Progressive Disclosure

Clear heading hierarchy with a dedicated 「深度阅读」 section listing one-level-deep references, and the 「配套代码」 section points to companion code. Not 5: cited paths (`book/chapter2.md`, `chapter1/context/`, `chapter2/prompt-engineering/`) and the `kv-cache-design` skill are not bundled with this skill, so the references dangle; not 3: structure and signaling within the file are good.

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions — 「设计 Agent 系统提示词、上下文结构或按需加载的 Skill」「系统提示词写法（结构化、SOP、业务规则细化、few-shot）」「Agent Skills 渐进式披露与 SKILL.md 编写」「提示注入的上下文层防御」「注意力位置偏好等布局原则」— comprehensively covering the skill's scope. Not 4: no meaningful action area is missing.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: 'what' via the enumerated coverage list (「API 消息角色与「静态前缀 + 轨迹」结构…提示注入的上下文层防御」) and 'when' via the explicit trigger clause 「设计…时使用」 with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4: the 'when' is not merely present but specific and concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms a user would say — 「系统提示词」「上下文结构」「Skill」「SKILL.md」「few-shot」「提示注入」— but common variations like 「提示工程」/“prompt engineering” and 「工具定义」 (a use case the body itself lists) are absent. Not 5: a few natural synonyms are missing; not 3: coverage goes well beyond 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (context engineering) with distinct triggers like 「渐进式披露」「提示注入的上下文层防御」that few other skills would claim. Not 5: minor overlap risk remains with a dedicated prompt-engineering or SKILL-writing skill, which the phrase 「系统提示词写法」 could also trigger.