Conciseness

The body is dense with operational guidance and avoids explaining basic concepts, but repeats rules emphatically ('绝不...绝不...', '静默丢弃是禁止的' stated multiple times, '**没有第二波修复**') and includes a '常见的合理化借口' table that largely restates rules already given. This matches anchor 3 (mostly efficient but with real tightening opportunity) rather than 4, since the redundancy is more than minor.

Actionability

It gives highly concrete, executable guidance — named scripts (scripts/task-brief, scripts/review-package, scripts/sdd-workspace), exact git commands (git rev-parse HEAD, git merge-base main HEAD), specific ledger line formats, report-naming conventions, and a worked example. It misses a 5 because the three dispatch template files it links to (implementer-prompt.md, task-reviewer-prompt.md, re-review-prompt.md) are absent from the bundle, leaving the central dispatch step not fully copy-paste executable.

Workflow Clarity

The skill is a fully validation-gated workflow: a graphviz process diagram, a numbered per-task loop (分派→处理报告→审查→修复循环→完成), explicit review gates (规格 ✅/❌, quality pass, '所有发现都已解决?'), directed re-review feedback loops per fix round, a 5-round circuit breaker with per-finding adjudication, and a final whole-branch review with gating rules. This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklists).

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is well-conceived — externalized scripts (which exist), one-level-deep clearly-signaled reference links, and clean section headers — but three of the linked reference artifacts (implementer-prompt.md, task-reviewer-prompt.md, re-review-prompt.md) are missing from the bundle, so the central references do not resolve. Per the guideline to score against actual bundle structure, this broken navigation pulls it below anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps' down to anchor 3.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('执行...实现计划') and adds a concreteness qualifier ('包含独立任务', '当前会话'), but offers only one thin action rather than a list of concrete capabilities. It sits between anchor 2 (single generic action) and anchor 3 (1-2 concrete actions), landing at 3 because the independent-task constraint adds specificity beyond a bare verb.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and specific ('当在当前会话中执行包含独立任务的实现计划时'), but the 'what' is only weakly implied — it never states the skill spawns per-task subagents with review gates. This is the inverse of anchor 3 (clear what, weak when); the strong, specific when plus a faint implied what keeps it at 3 rather than dropping to 2's 'only when present without what'.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural phrases a user might say ('实现计划', '独立任务') tied to an explicit '当...时使用' trigger, but provides no synonyms, variations, or extensions. This matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than anchor 4's broader coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger carves a clear niche (implementation plan with independent tasks, in-session) distinct from generic skills, with only minor overlap risk against the closely related executing-plans skill referenced in the body. This matches anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap with closely related skills) rather than 5, since the sibling skill represents a real adjacent trigger.