Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — input tables, a compact flow diagram, exit criteria, and a checklist, with zero padding about concepts Claude already knows. It is not a 5 because the tester-isolation rule is stated four times (核心约束 #1, the role-3 table, the checklist, and again in 参考资料 annotations), and the in-body role-contract tables partially duplicate what is delegated to references/developer-prompt.md and references/tester-prompt.md.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: exact input requirements with a 'stop and ask the user' rule, precise loop exit conditions ("review 报告明确写 verdict: pass", "没有任何 P0/P1 残留", 已有测试无退化), report file naming patterns with placeholders, and four verified, copy-paste-ready subagent prompt templates in references/. It falls short of 5 only because the subagent launch mechanics (e.g. which tool/flag to start and close a subagent) are left implicit, relying on Claude to know how to spawn the agents.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is fully sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: a numbered loop diagram with decision points, verdict-based exit conditions for both the inner loop and the overall flow, feedback loops (review fail → developer fixes; test fail → developer fixes), regression protection ("已有测试无退化"), anti-deadloop guards (same issue 3 rounds → pause and consult the user), and a pre-delivery QA checklist. This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, and a checklist.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an orchestration overview pointing to four real, one-level-deep reference files (developer/reviewer/tester prompt templates and summary-template.md), all clearly signaled both inline ("详细 prompt 见:", "见 references/summary-template.md") and in a 参考资料 index section. It is not a 5 because each role contract is duplicated in full tables in the body rather than fully delegated to the corresponding reference, a minor organization gap the 4 anchor describes.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete actions: taking a design doc / source dir / test env as inputs, orchestrating a three-party isolated implement loop ("编排「开发者 ↔ 评审者 ↔ 测试者」三方隔离的实施循环"), exit conditions ("直至评审通过、且所有测试(新增 + 已有)通过"), the isolation constraint ("测试者绝对不能看到开发者写的代码"), and a concrete output ("输出 markdown 总结报告到当前项目的 markdown/ 目录"). This matches the 'multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' anchor; it is not the 4 anchor because inputs, process, termination criteria, and outputs are all explicitly covered with no material gap.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: the 'what' is a fully specified orchestration-to-green-loop pipeline, and the 'when' is an explicit trigger clause ("适用于:..." equivalent to 'Use when...') listing six concrete usage scenarios. It matches the anchor for clear, explicit what AND when with concrete trigger phrases; the 4 anchor ('when' could be more specific) does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

The '适用于:' clause gives good natural trigger phrases: "实施功能设计文档", "按设计稿开发并自验证", "闭环式开发流程", "PostgreSQL 插件/扩展开发", "需要 build + 部署 + 跑测的工程项目", "TDD 式实施循环". A few natural variations users might say are missing (e.g. '按设计文档实现', '实现规格说明书', '插件开发'), so it fits the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive-synonyms anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche — a three-way isolated implement/review/test loop downstream of a named upstream skill ("由 product-feature-tech-design 产出") — which distinguishes it from generic dev or review skills. However, broad triggers like "需要 build + 部署 + 跑测的工程项目" and "TDD 式实施循环" could overlap with a general implementation or TDD skill, fitting the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor rather than the minimal-conflict anchor.