The core sections (输出契约, 硬规则, 推荐工作流) are lean bullets with no concept re-explanation, but the 'BenszAPI 任务工作区' and '与 bensz-collect-bugs 的协作约定' sections spend tokens on framework policy (temp-file paths, bug-reporting rules) that is non-core to the writing task, matching 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'; not 3 because of that non-core overhead, not 1 because nothing is verbose or padded.

Provides concrete, runnable commands ('scripts/run.py coach --stage auto', 'scripts/run.py init', 'diagnose', 'review', 'apply-section', 'diff', 'rollback'), exact file contracts ('extraTex/1.1.立项依据.tex', 'main.tex', 'extraTex/@config.tex'), and a named config switch ('config.yaml:style.mode' → theoretical/mixed/engineering), meeting the 'fully executable commands; copy-paste ready' anchor; absence of inline code is acceptable for this instruction-only skill since the guidance is actionable.

The 推荐工作流 is an explicit 8-step sequence with validation checkpoints (stage detection via 'coach --stage auto', 可核验性与引用守护, 术语/缩写/指标一致性检查) and recovery affordances (自动备份, rollback), matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops' anchor; not capped at 2 because the LaTeX-editing destructive operation is covered by diagnose/backup/rollback.

The body is a well-signaled overview pointing one level deep to real reference files ('references/info_form.md', 'references/scientific_question_guidelines.md', etc., all verified present) and scripts, with substantive writing guidance split out rather than inlined, matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor; the nested references/docs/workflows/ is organizational, not the chained-reference anti-pattern.

Names multiple concrete outputs/actions — '输出价值与必要性、现状不足、科学问题/假说与项目切入点' and '保持模板结构不被破坏' — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor; it is above 2 because the actions are enumerated and specific rather than a single vague domain mention.

Explicitly answers both 'what' ('基于最小信息表输出…') and 'when' ('当用户明确要求…时使用'), with an explicit Use-when trigger clause, so it is not capped at 2 per the guideline and clearly meets the 'answers both what AND when' anchor.

Triggers center on the '立项依据' term family ('写/改 NSFC 立项依据', '立项依据写作/重构') which are natural, but common variations a user might say (研究意义, 为什么要做, 国内外现状) appear only in the frontmatter triggers list, not the description, so coverage is partial rather than comprehensive; not 3 because of the missing common variations, not 1 because the stated terms are genuinely natural.

Occupies a clear niche (NSFC / 科研基金申请书 立项依据 writing) with domain-specific triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor; it is above 2 because the scope is narrowly scoped to grant-justification writing rather than a generic document skill.