Conciseness

The body is imperative and lean ("Start from the market problem, not the feature list"; "Write high-level capabilities, not button-level implementation") with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor redundancy exists — the self-check checklist restates several writing rules — so it matches anchor 4 (minor trimming possible) rather than anchor 5 (every token earns its place), and is well above anchor 3.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact file-naming patterns ("markdown/<产品或主题>-MRD-<YYYYMMDD>.md"), SVG naming ("figure-1.svg"), explicit pointers to references/mrd-playbook.md and assets/mrd-template.md (both exist), and a fallback rule ("write 'market data pending verification' rather than inventing numbers"). For an instruction-only skill this matches anchor 4; it falls short of 5 only because depth-selection criteria and visual choices are described without a concrete inline example.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 6-step workflow (normalize → choose depth → build argument → add visuals → save → self-check) culminating in an explicit validation step: "Self-check before final response" with a concrete checklist covering answered questions, no PRD drift, at-least-one-visual, named assumptions, and file existence. This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence with explicit validation steps and a checklist).

Progressive Disclosure

Both referenced bundle files (references/mrd-playbook.md for writing logic, assets/mrd-template.md for the output skeleton) exist, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled with paths. Sections are well-organized (Purpose, Inputs, Workflow, Rules, Optional Research, Final Response). It sits between anchors 4 and 5: references are embedded inside a workflow step rather than presented in a dedicated navigation section, and the template is qualified with "when useful" — so 4 is the best fit.

Specificity

"Generate a market requirements document (MRD) from a product idea and save it as Markdown under the current project's markdown/ directory" names the domain and 1-2 concrete actions (generate, save to a location), but does not enumerate several specific actions like diagram creation, depth selection, or web research. This matches anchor 3 (1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than anchor 4, which requires a list of several specific actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers "what" ("Generate a market requirements document (MRD) from a product idea and save it as Markdown under the current project's markdown/ directory") and "when" ("Use when the user asks to write, draft, create, produce, or refine an MRD...") with concrete trigger phrases. This matches anchor 5 exactly; anchor 4 would apply only if the 'when' clause were less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Covers comprehensive natural trigger terms including verb variations ("write, draft, create, produce, or refine"), document-type synonyms ("MRD, market requirements document, product opportunity document, market demand analysis, product idea validation document"), and bilingual variants ("写 MRD", "市场需求文档", "产品立项文档", "产品机会分析"). This matches anchor 5's comprehensive coverage of natural terms and synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

MRD generation is a clear niche with distinct triggers in both English and Chinese, and the description names the specific document types; overlap risk with generic document or PRD skills is minimal. Matches anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers), not anchor 4 (which implies notable overlap with closely related skills).