Conciseness

"先检查 status、分支、remote、upstream、diff 和未跟踪文件" is dense, imperative, operational prose — zero padding, no explanation of git basics Claude already knows, and every sentence carries instructions. It matches anchor 5: lean, assumes competence, every token earns its place.

Actionability

Concrete elements include `git diff --check`, the `codex/` branch prefix, and an explicit scan checklist ("凭证、私有 URL、设备路径、账号、内部项目细节、运行日志、图片元数据和引用目标"). It falls short of anchor 5's fully executable standard: "做 hunk 级补丁" and worktree isolation name no commands (e.g. `git add -p`), and `sync-notes`/三方对账工具 have no path or reference — far more concrete than anchor 3's pseudocode level.

Workflow Clarity

A clear ordered sequence (inspect → classify → split → pre-commit scan → test/commit → push/PR → post-commit verify) with multiple explicit checkpoints ("核对实际 staged 内容后提交", "提交后验证远端 head 与本地一致") and a pre-commit checklist, so validation is present for the destructive/batch operations and no cap applies. It misses anchor 5 because error-recovery feedback loops are absent — what to do when tests fail or the remote head diverges is unstated.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines, self-contained with no external references needed, and the paragraphs follow a logical phase order — appropriately placed content with minor organization gaps. It misses anchor 5 because there are no section headers or lists marking the phases, and the CS-Notes paragraph references tools (`sync-notes`, 三方对账工具) that have no accompanying bundle files or pointers.

Specificity

"Split mixed Git changes into public-safe, reviewable commits and PRs" plus "Preserve unrelated work; merging is separate" lists several concrete actions (split into commits, create PRs, preserve unrelated work, scope out merging) with minor gaps. It exceeds anchor 3 (only 1-2 actions) but is not comprehensive like anchor 5 — what "public-safe" entails operationally is never stated.

Completeness

The what is clear ("Split mixed Git changes into public-safe, reviewable commits and PRs") and the when is explicit ("when the user requests publication or cleanup"), which is an explicit trigger clause so the missing-'Use when' cap of 3 does not apply. It falls short of anchor 5 because the when clause lacks concrete trigger phrases users commonly say, such as "split these changes into separate commits".

Trigger Term Quality

Keywords "Git changes", "commits", "PRs", "publication", and "cleanup" give good natural coverage a user would plausibly say. A few natural terms are missing — "pull request" spelled out, and variations like "split" or "untangle" — so it fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym/extension coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Split mixed Git changes into ... commits and PRs" carves a clear niche distinct from related skills like commit-message generation. The generic trigger word "cleanup" creates minor overlap risk with unrelated cleanup requests, keeping it below anchor 5's minimal-conflict standard.