Conciseness

Mostly procedural and useful, but noticeably padded with repeated maxims ("生命线", "AI 味", "重写不是缝合" appear multiple times) and a terminal 关键原则 section that restates guidance already covered in the steps; could be tightened.

Actionability

Gives concrete, executable orchestration guidance — specific file-naming conventions (markdown/<slug>-expert-<n>.md), tool calls (Read agents/expert.md then Agent), and parallel-in-one-turn instructions — with the minor gap that the referenced agent prompt templates are not present in the bundle.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced Step 0→5 pipeline with explicit validation gates (experts must finish before fact-checker/red-team) and a Step 5 self-check checklist with a retry-until-passing feedback loop — a strong match for the 5-anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure and signaling are decent (explicit agents/*.md paths listed), but those referenced files do not exist in the bundle and the ~280-line body inlines the detailed writing-style guidance that could live in a reference file.

Specificity

Lists several concrete pipeline actions — "识别问题所属领域", "调度多位领域专家并行作答", "事实核查员和红队做事实审计与对抗性反驳", "整合为面向小白的第一人称终稿" — but they sit at process-step granularity rather than the fine-grained action list of the 5-anchor.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what (the full analysis pipeline) and when (the 适用 trigger clause) with concrete trigger phrases, and adds a 不适用 clause for when not to use it — a clear match for the 5-anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage via the 适用 clause ("跨领域/有深度的真实问题", "多位专家的视角", "观点的边界与证伪条件") that users would naturally echo, though a few more colloquial synonyms are missing and no file-extension-style triggers apply.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-expert + fact-check + red-team + first-person synthesis combination is a distinct niche with carved-out 不适用 exclusions, but retains minor overlap risk with general deep-analysis/research skills.