Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious behavioral instruction (message composition rules, the ~200-300 char paraphrase spec, three-bucket question triage, size-judgment table) and mostly assumes competence rather than teaching basics. Minor padding could be trimmed — the motivational opening ("你非常擅长构建……这个'认为'通常比你感觉到的要单薄") and asides like "智能体做事是瀑布式的，只不过非常、非常快" — so anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation') fits better than 5.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is copy-paste ready: the first message is specified as exactly two items in order with a quoted skip-offer, the visual-companion proposal is given verbatim ("要我打开一个浏览器标签页，放几个原型给你看吗？"), concrete question scripts are provided ("带我走一遍上一次……的经过"), a decision table maps work sizes to next steps, and the design doc path is fully specified (docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md). Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this concrete; anchor 5 fits.

Workflow Clarity

The full lifecycle is clearly sequenced — first message → question loop with coverage areas → alternating paraphrase-back with confirmation → size judgment → written design → builder check → HARD-GATE → writing-plans — with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: each paraphrase ends by asking "哪里不对或漏了什么", the builder check is a validation pass with a triage protocol and one bounded round of follow-up questions, and the danger-signals table plus HARD-GATE act as checklists. Anchor 5 ('explicit validation steps; feedback loops; checklists') matches; not 4 because no significant checkpoint is missing.

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md itself is well-sectioned and its references are clearly signaled and one level deep, but scored against the actual bundle both referenced paths are broken: "用本目录下的 builder-check-prompt.md 派发一个全新的子代理" and "先阅读本目录下的 visual-companion.md" point to files that do not exist in the bundle, and the five files in scripts/ (server.cjs, start-server.sh, stop-server.sh, helper.js, frame-template.html) are never referenced from SKILL.md at all. Navigation fails at exactly the delegation points, so anchor 3 ('some structure; references present but problematic') fits; not 4 because runtime navigation to referenced files is broken, and not 2 because the body itself is not monolithic and the split into a lean overview plus detail files is the right design in principle.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete scenarios ("创建功能、构建组件、添加功能、修改行为，或筹划任何新东西") which are specific and well-scoped, but it never states any action the skill itself performs. It names the domain richly yet the capability side is thin, matching anchor 3 ('names domain and concrete items but not comprehensive') rather than 4 ('several specific actions' would require the skill's own actions to be listed).

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and comprehensive ("在任何创造性工作之前必须使用此技能" plus an enumerated list), but the 'what' is entirely absent — the description says only when to invoke the skill, never what it does (e.g. runs a question-driven conversation, produces a written design). Scoring only what is explicitly stated, this matches anchor 2's 'only when is present without what'; it is not 3 because there is no clear 'what' even implicitly in the description text, and not above 2 for the same reason.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases cover the main invocation scenarios users would actually voice — "创建功能", "构建组件", "添加功能", "修改行为", "筹划任何新东西" — and extend beyond software ("一场分享、一门生意、一次装修"). A few natural terms are missing (e.g. 头脑风暴/brainstorm, 想法, 设计 as explicit triggers), fitting anchor 4 rather than 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger is scoped (pre-creation timing, creative/new work, excluding e.g. bug fixes and analysis) but claims that entire territory — "在任何创造性工作之前必须使用" — creating overlap risk with planning, design, and requirements-gathering skills (the body itself delegates to writing-plans). 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' (anchor 3) fits; not 4 because the 'any new thing, software or not' framing is very broad.