Conciseness

Dense, opinionated design guidance carrying curated facts Claude does not already hold ('SWE-bench Verified 从 2294 个原始任务…仅 500 个通过', 'OSWorld…134 个独立评估函数'), assuming competence throughout with no padding. However, 常见陷阱 re-derives points already made in 实践模式/核心原则 ('只验 FAIL_TO_PASS 不验 PASS_TO_PASS', 敷衍性修复, 事实锚定 each appear twice), so minor trimming is possible — anchor 4, not 5.

Actionability

Concrete field-level guidance ('ticket / user_scenario / initial_state / evaluation_criteria', 'known_info 与 task_instructions 的拆分', 'env_assertions 验终态…reward_basis 是聚合规则') plus an explicit manual validation routine ('每道题亲手做一遍。做完问两个问题：…验证器拦得住吗？'). But no copy-paste task or validator template is inline — concrete examples are delegated to external 'chapter7/' directories — so anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance, minor gaps') rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

The 实践模式 sections follow a recognizable lifecycle order (task anatomy → validators → difficulty → leak prevention → QA/maintenance → sources) and include explicit checkpoints ('每道题亲手做一遍', the SWE-bench five-criteria human triage, the OSWorld four-class repair taxonomy). But the sequence is implicit — never framed as a numbered authoring workflow with validate-fix-retry loops — so anchor 4 rather than 5; not 3, since checkpoints are present and named rather than missing.

Progressive Disclosure

The body appropriately keeps principles/patterns in SKILL.md and signals one-level-deep references in dedicated sections ('配套代码' with three chapter7 dirs each described; '深度阅读' with book/chapter7.md). However, no references/scripts/assets bundle exists and none of the cited paths (chapter7/*, book/chapter7.md) resolve inside the skill directory — references are clear but point at unverifiable targets, so anchor 4 ('minor organization gaps') rather than 5.

Specificity

Lists six concrete actions — '解剖评估任务的四个组成部分、设计验证器与验收标准（含防敷衍性修复）', '划分任务难度与陷阱任务', '防范训练/评估数据泄漏（参数化实例、canary）', '建设评估集的质量控制与长期维护', '选择公开基准/自建业务集/生产轨迹回流三个来源' — comprehensively covering the design-to-maintenance lifecycle. Matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage, not 4 (which allows only minor gaps).

Completeness

'设计 Agent 评估数据集或单条评估任务时使用' is an explicit when-clause with concrete trigger phrases, and the dash-separated action list clearly states what the skill does. Both what and when are explicitly present, matching anchor 5 rather than 4 (where the 'when' would be less specific).

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords — '评估数据集', '评估任务', '验证器', '验收标准', '数据泄漏', 'canary' plus six benchmark names (τ²-bench, SWE-bench, AndroidWorld, OSWorld, Terminal-Bench, GAIA) — but common variations users might say ('评测集', '出题/写评估题', '防作弊', 'eval harness') are absent. Fits anchor 4 ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'), not 5, which requires synonym-level coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'设计…评估数据集' carves a clear design-time niche distinct from running or analyzing evals, and distinctive triggers (validator design, canary, 防泄漏, named benchmarks) make wrong-skill triggering unlikely. Clear niche with minimal conflict risk → anchor 5, not 4, since overlap with generic model-evaluation skills is minimal given the explicit design scope.