The body is ~232 lines and assumes Claude's competence in most places (no 'what a PDF is' padding), but it repeats the core guardrails several times — '只发现、不定修' / '只发现不定修' appears ~6 times, and the Haskell Spec plus a separate '守护规则' plus 'Failure Behavior' plus '退出条件' all restate the same scope/no-blind-scan/no-ADR guards. Some tightening would remove redundancy without losing clarity. Not 3 because of this repetition; not 1 because nothing explains basic concepts Claude already knows and the guidance is substantive, not padded fluff.

Guidance is concrete in places — '每条发现必须记录 文件:行号 + 具体代码片段', per-dimension thresholds ('每种维度最多报 5 条'), and a defined output directory layout — but the main executable artifact is a Haskell pseudocode Spec rather than copy-paste-ready commands, and the index/finding templates live only in an unreferenced-as-existing reference.md. It instructs well but is not fully copy-paste ready. Not 3 because the spec is pseudocode and templates are external; not 1 because it does give specific, executable per-finding and per-dimension rules.

A clear four-phase sequence (范围收敛 → 扫描 → 定级+产出 → 建议下一步) with explicit checkpoints — ConfirmScope / WholeRepoRefused / ArchDriftNoAdr — and a closing checklist ('退出条件') plus failure/reporting behavior. Validation feedback is built in (resume only accepts the matching reason, else Blocked; report blocked state before retrying). Matches the anchor with explicit validation steps and an error-recovery loop; not 2 because checkpoints are explicit, not implicit.

Structure is reasonable (sections for workflow, dimension matrix, guards, failure behavior) and it references detail files one level deep (reference.md for templates, shared-conventions.md, adrs/). However reference.md is referenced but not present as a bundle file (no references/ dir and no reference.md exists), and the large Haskell Spec + dimension matrix live inline where the index/finding templates arguably belong in reference.md. Some structure but references are not clearly backed and some split-out content is inline. Not 3 because the referenced detail file does not exist and inline content could be better separated; not 1 because there is real sectioning and one-level-deep references rather than a monolithic wall or nested references.

Lists multiple concrete actions — '审查系统、扫描 bug/安全/性能/架构债，产出发现清单' names the scanning of several dimensions and a concrete deliverable (a findings list). It also enumerates precise non-goals (cs-code-review, cs-issue, cs-feat, cs-refactor, cs-keep), which reinforces specific scope rather than vague language. Not below 3 because the actions are concrete and multi-part; clearly above the 'Names domain and some actions' anchor at 2.

It answers both 'what' (scans 5 dimensions, produces a severity×nature findings list) and 'when' with an explicit trigger clause ('触发：审查系统…'), plus explicit anti-triggers ('不要用于…'). The 'Use when...' equivalent is present and explicit. Not 2 because both what and when are clearly stated rather than implied.

Natural user-facing trigger terms are explicit: '触发：审查系统、扫描 bug/安全/性能/架构债' maps directly to a user saying '帮我审查一下系统/扫一下 bug'. It covers the common phrasings users would actually say for an audit. Above 2 because coverage of natural terms is broad, not just a few relevant keywords.

It carves a clear niche — '仓库级只读投查，只发现不定修' — and explicitly distinguishes it from five sibling skills (cs-code-review, cs-issue, cs-feat, cs-refactor, cs-keep), so it is unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill. Distinct triggers and anti-triggers make conflict risk low; above 2.