Conciseness

Lean and efficient throughout: ~90 lines of dense instructions with zero concept explanations, no padding, and two compact tables (速查, 危险信号) that compress guidance instead of lengthening it. Every line instructs rather than describes — matches the anchor-5 example of a skill that assumes Claude's competence.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance dominates: exact paths (~/.superpowers/diagnosing-superpowers/<session-id>/), named prompt files per dimension, explicit commands (zip -r / tar -czf), named redaction levels (skeleton/evidence/full), and precise conditions per step. Not 5 because steps 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 depend on templates/ and prompts/ files that are absent from the bundle, so execution stalls at those points as shipped.

Workflow Clarity

Seven numbered steps with explicit per-step conditions (第 5–7 步只在各自注明的条件下执行), explicit validation gates (丢弃没有 path:line 的发现; scrub → scrub-audit loop repeated until CLEAN; 核对被引用的内容实际能证明什么), approval gates before archiving or filing issues, and a dangerous-signals checklist that anticipates drift. This matches the anchor-5 feedback-loop pattern exactly.

Progressive Disclosure

The body signals one-level-deep references cleanly, but scored against the actual bundle most navigation targets are broken: only references/ exists (4 files), while the ~14 referenced files under templates/ and prompts/ (case.md, report.md, issue.md, bundle-README.md, analyst-common.md, the seven dimension prompts, scrub.md, scrub-audit.md, similar-session.md) do not exist, and references/redaction-policy.md is present but never referenced from the body. The promised disclosure structure is largely absent, which is below anchor 3's 'references present but not clearly signaled'.

Specificity

The trigger side is richly concrete ("重复劳动、无视计划、磕磕绊绊、结果质量差、某个技能没触发" plus scope "按 id / 路径指定的过往会话，任何工具均可"), but the action side names only "整理一份 bug 报告" — the core analysis actions (reading transcripts, producing evidence-cited findings) are absent, matching anchor 3-4. The second-person phrase "你的人类伙伴想知道原因" additionally incurs the rubric's −1 voice penalty, landing the score at 3.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the "what" (diagnose what went wrong in a superpowers session, compile a bug report for maintainers) and an exceptionally explicit "when" (当…时使用 with a concrete symptom list). It sits between anchors 4 and 5 rather than at 5 because the what-side stops short of naming what the skill actually does — it never mentions reading session transcripts or producing the evidence-backed findings that the body delivers.

Trigger Term Quality

Verbatim user complaints are quoted directly ("太慢了"、"为什么这么贵"、"它到底在干什么") alongside symptom phrases ("某个技能没触发", "无视计划", "重复劳动") and the bug-report intent — exactly the natural language a user would say, with synonym-level coverage. Not 4 because no common variation of these complaints is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (diagnosing superpowers sessions) with distinct, verbatim trigger phrases that no other plausible skill would claim — minimal conflict risk.