Conciseness

The body is dense, high-value operational guidance with no filler about concepts Claude already knows, but it carries real redundancy: the two dot flowcharts (~90 lines total) restate the prose process almost node-for-node, the "绝不用 HEAD~1" warning appears twice nearly verbatim, the "静默丢弃是禁止的" prohibition recurs in at least three sections, and the Ruling ledger format is re-specified repeatedly. This is 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than 'minor instances of over-explanation', so it sits at 3 rather than 4; it is well above 2 because there is no padded explanation of known concepts — every repetition is an operational rule, just stated more times than needed.

Actionability

The guidance is highly executable: exact commands with argument placeholders ("bash scripts/sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE", "bash scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N", "bash scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD"), exact ledger line formats ("Task <N>: fix round <R>/5 (...)"), a concrete example workflow, and specific dispatch-brief contents. It is not 5 because the three referenced prompt templates (implementer-prompt.md, task-reviewer-prompt.md, re-review-prompt.md) are absent from the bundle, so the most load-bearing dispatch artifacts cannot actually be used as written; not 3 because everything that is present is concrete and directly executable.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints at every stage: pre-flight plan conflict scan producing a table, per-task spec-compliance plus quality review as a hard gate, fix rounds with per-round re-reviews and a five-round circuit breaker with adjudication rules, a final whole-branch review, and compaction-recovery via the ledger. Feedback loops (fix → re-review → re-fix, and validate-before-proceed gates like "三者齐备才分派复审") are explicit throughout, and the rationalization table plus the four stop conditions function as a checklist. This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists; nothing material is missing.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure within SKILL.md is clear (何时使用 / 流程 / 准备 / 模型选择 / 任务循环 / 最终审查 / 收尾 / 借口表 / 示例) and references are explicitly signaled as markdown links, but scored against the actual bundle: the three referenced template files (implementer-prompt.md, task-reviewer-prompt.md, re-review-prompt.md) do not exist in the bundle, and the external "../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md" is also absent — so navigation breaks at exactly the points where detail should be disclosed. The three scripts in scripts/ are real and correctly referenced, which keeps this above the 'references buried' anchors, but the dangling template links and the 33KB monolithic body leave it at 'some structure, could be better organized' rather than 4.

Specificity

The description names its domain — "执行包含独立任务的实现计划" (executing implementation plans containing independent tasks) — but lists no concrete actions at all; it is purely a trigger clause with no statement of what the skill actually does (dispatch implementer subagents, run per-task reviews, hold fix rounds, final branch review). It is not score 1 because the domain is concretely named rather than abstract ('帮助处理文档'), and not score 3 because no capability or action is described, only the condition of use.

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present ("当在当前会话中执行包含独立任务的实现计划时使用") with no 'what' whatsoever — the description never states that the skill dispatches fresh subagents per task, reviews each task, or runs a final whole-branch review. This matches anchor 2 ('only when is present without what', e.g. "Use when working with documents") exactly. Not 3 because anchor 3 requires a clear 'what', which is entirely absent here.

Trigger Term Quality

It contains genuinely relevant natural phrases a user would say — "执行…实现计划" (execute an implementation plan), "独立任务" (independent tasks), "当前会话" — but misses the most identity-defining terms: 子智能体/subagent, 任务审查/fix rounds, and common variations like "按计划实现" or "执行这个计划". Not 4 because the entire subagent vocabulary, the skill's core identity, is absent; not 2 because the terms present are natural and on-target, not generic filler.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"包含独立任务的实现计划" is the only discriminator against the closely related inline-execution skill (executing-plans), and the subagent-dispatch distinction — the skill's real differentiator — is absent, so a user with an implementation plan could plausibly trigger the wrong skill. It is somewhat specific (plans with independent tasks) but overlaps with similar plan-execution skills. Not 4 because the key distinguishing mechanism (subagent dispatch, per-task review) is missing; not 2 because the domain is not broadly generic.