Conciseness

The ~30-line body is lean and assumes competence throughout: no concept explanations, no padding, every line is instruction (file paths, commands, gates, output structure). The only repetition — the intake gate stated in both 输入 and 步骤 1 ("三件套不齐只提问…INTAKE_OK:1") — reads as deliberate emphasis of a hard checkpoint, so the content still matches 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Mostly executable: exact Read targets (prompts/guardrails.md, intake.md, fill_chart.md, delivery_confirm.md), sibling skill entry points, and a copy-paste command ("python skills/patent-chart/tools/emit_chart.py --json <payload.json> --into <INTAKE_DIR>"). Minor gaps: the payload.json schema is not specified or pointed to inline, and shorthand like "补 D" and "交底 5.1" is undefined here, so it sits just below 'fully executable, covers common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and recovery loops: the intake gate ("收齐并 INTAKE_OK:1 后才分析、才写 intake.json"), conditional dispatch when files are missing, a download fallback ("下不来就请用户给 PDF"), and a final delivery-confirmation block (交付后请确认). This matches the top anchor's validate-gated sequence with error-recovery feedback; no destructive/batch cap applies since the skill only writes its own outputs.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: the body points to many well-signaled files (prompts/*.md, skills/patent-reader|patent-search/SKILL.md, tools/emit_chart.py) but none of these exist in the bundle, while the one bundle file present, references/handoff.md (cross-skill handoff rules directly relevant to the dispatch steps), is never referenced from SKILL.md. Structure exists on paper but navigation to the actual bundle content is broken and the existing reference is unlinked — 'references present but not clearly signaled' rather than well-organized.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions covering the full capability: "独权拆成技术特征" (decompose independent claims into technical features), "逐格比对对比文件/产品/标准" (cell-by-cell comparison against references/products/standards), "附证据与强弱" (attach evidence and strength/weakness), plus the artifact itself ("权利要求对照表"). This is comprehensive coverage of what the skill does, matching the top anchor rather than the 'minor gaps' of a 4.

Completeness

Both what and when are explicitly answered with concrete trigger phrases: what = "独权拆成技术特征，逐格比对…附证据与强弱"; when = "用于无效对照、FTO 初筛、侵权/EoU、SEP、可专利性底稿" plus the explicit invocation rule "须点名". This matches the anchor 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'; the 'Use when' cap at 3 does not apply since an equivalent explicit trigger clause is present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage in the target language: 对照表, 无效对照, FTO 初筛, 侵权/EoU, SEP, 可专利性. A few natural terms are missing from the description itself — notably the English "claim chart" (which appears only in the body's 何时用 section) and spelled-out variants like "freedom to operate" — so it fits 'good coverage, a few natural terms missing' rather than comprehensive.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche (patent claim charts) with distinct triggers — 无效对照, FTO 初筛, EoU, SEP — that no generic skill would claim, and adds a boundary ("不出法律意见"). Conflict risk with adjacent patent skills (reader/search) is minimal since their functions are not described as this skill's own.