Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient instruction, but the 10-row 专业术语词典 re-explains concepts Claude already knows ("RSI | 相对强弱指数，衡量涨跌速度，>70超买，<30超卖", "P/E | 市盈率，股价/每股盈利") — that section could be one line instructing novice-level annotation on first use. This is more than the 'minor instances' of anchor 4, so it sits at 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: eight copy-paste search query templates ("{TICKER} stock price today technical analysis" etc.), a data-collection table, explicit weighted score ranges (M 0-15, T 0-30, V 0-20, S 0-25, F 0-10), the expected-return formula with a decision threshold (risk-reward > 1.5), a complete report template, ASCII chart examples, and a filename convention. This matches anchor 5 — copy-paste-ready commands with examples covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–5 are clearly sequenced and the 质量检查清单 provides an explicit pre-output validation checklist, giving most checkpoints. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no feedback loop — no instruction on what to do when a checklist item fails (e.g., probabilities not summing to 100% or a dimension's data unavailable) beyond the implicit confidence-degradation note.

Progressive Disclosure

The reference `references/methodology.md` is clearly signaled, real, and exactly one level deep (no nested references inside it), and the body is well-sectioned. However, content that arguably belongs in the reference — the report structure template, the glossary, and the risk-control module which overlaps methodology.md's own 风险控制铁律 section — is inlined, which is a minor organization gap matching anchor 4 rather than the clean split of anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — predicting next-day US stock movement, generating an illustrated Markdown report with named content types (logic derivation, intermediate results, quantified probabilities, operational advice), and saving the file to the project's markdown/ directory. Coverage of the 'what' is comprehensive rather than gapped, matching the anchor-5 example's breadth of specific actions; it is not a 4 because no concrete capability area is left unspecified at the description level.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("预测美股个股次日走势，输出图文并茂的 Markdown 分析报告…") and when (an explicit 触发条件 clause with concrete trigger phrases and example utterances). The 'when' is maximally explicit with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 example; a 4 would require the when-clause to be less specific than it is.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes a comprehensive set of natural phrases users would actually say — "预测明天走势", "明天能涨吗", "明天该买吗", "次日预测", "做T建议", "短线操作", "明日行情", "值得持有吗" — plus concrete example utterances ("帮我看看NVDA明天怎么走", "AAPL明天能不能买") covering both name-based and ticker-based inputs. This synonym-level coverage including code examples matches the anchor-5 example ('PDF files, PDFs, forms, document extraction, .pdf').

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (US-stock next-day movement prediction) is clear with mostly distinct triggers, but the keyword "帮我分析一下XX股票" is a generic analysis request that could also match a general stock-analysis skill — minor overlap risk with a closely related skill, matching anchor 4. It is not a 5 because that broad trigger is not uniquely tied to next-day prediction in the keyword list itself.