Conciseness

The ~30-line body is pure operational content — directives, exact file paths, output specs — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.

Actionability

Steps name exact files to Read (prompts/patent_plain_reader.md, prompts/type_hooks.md) and per-purpose scripts (tools/extract/fetch_patent_pdf.py, tools/vault/write_patent_obsidian_note.py, tools/analyze/validate_claim_features.py), which is mostly executable guidance. It falls short of anchor 5 because no invocation examples with arguments are given, so the commands are not copy-paste ready.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 步骤 section has a clear sequence with conditional branches (对照表派工 stops early; 实用新型/外观 adds type hooks) and names validation tools (validate_claim_features.py, patent_reader_self_check.md). Not 5 because there is no explicit validate → fix → re-check feedback loop; the checkpoints are named but not wired into the sequence.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: every path the body delegates to — prompts/patent_plain_reader.md, prompts/type_hooks.md, prompts/fill_*, obsidian_ofm_companion.md, patent_reader_self_check.md, and the entire tools/ tree — is absent from the bundle, so navigation does not resolve. Meanwhile the files that do exist (references/patent_pdf_sources.yaml, references/schemas/claim_features.schema.yaml, assets/patent_note_template.md) are never mentioned in the body, leaving them undiscoverable. Not 3 because the references are not merely unclearly signaled but broken in both directions.

Specificity

"公开号/PDF 成通俗笔记、图谱与 Obsidian 入库" names concrete inputs (publication number, PDF) and three specific outputs (plain-language notes, graphs, Obsidian ingestion), matching the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because key capabilities like claim-feature extraction and machine-readable outputs are unmentioned; not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

"中国专利通俗解读：公开号/PDF 成通俗笔记、图谱与 Obsidian 入库" gives a clear, concrete 'what', but there is no 'use when' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping this dimension at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely underspecified.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present — 中国专利, 公开号, PDF, 通俗解读 — giving good keyword coverage. A few common variations are missing (专利号, 专利文献, .pdf), so it sits between anchor 3 and the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is unmistakable — Chinese patent plain-language interpretation with Obsidian vault ingestion — so it would rarely trigger for the wrong skill. Overlap risk with generic PDF or note-taking skills is minimal, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.