Conciseness

The body is lean: commands come with one-line comments, justifications are single sentences ("**为什么关键：** 防止 worktree 内容被意外提交到仓库"), and it never explains concepts Claude already knows. It stops short of anchor 5 only because the '常见的合理化借口' table and the '快速参考' table restate rules already spelled out in the steps — one of the two could be trimmed. Comfortably above anchor 3's 'some unnecessary explanation'.

Actionability

Nearly everything is copy-paste-ready bash: the GIT_DIR/GIT_COMMON detection, the submodule guard, `git check-ignore -q`, the per-ecosystem setup and test commands. The gap that keeps it from anchor 5 is the creation block `path="$LOCATION/$BRANCH_NAME"` / `git worktree add "$path" -b "$BRANCH_NAME"`, which uses placeholder variables whose values are only implied by the prose priority list rather than given concretely.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0-3 are explicitly sequenced (detect existing isolation → create via native tool or git fallback → project setup → baseline validation), with real validation checkpoints: the submodule guard, the mandatory `git check-ignore` verification before creation, baseline tests before any work, and recovery paths (sandbox fallback to work in place, ask-the-user on test failure). The quick-reference table doubles as a checklist — a clear match for anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklists'.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the body references no external paths, so there are no broken or buried references; sections are clearly headed and easy to navigate. It scores 4 rather than 5 because at ~165 lines, some content (the per-language setup/test matrix and the two summary tables) could plausibly live in a reference file — the 'no external references needed' exemption is scoped to skills under 50 lines. Still well above anchor 3, which requires inline content that clearly belongs elsewhere or buried references.

Specificity

The description names its domain clearly ("通过原生工具或 git worktree 回退机制确保隔离工作区存在") and states one concrete action with two mechanisms, but does not enumerate the skill's other concrete operations (detecting existing isolation, verifying ignore status, running baseline tests). This matches anchor 3 ("names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive") better than anchor 4, which expects several listed specific actions.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'when' is a concrete trigger clause ("当需要开始与当前工作区隔离的功能开发，或在执行实现计划之前使用") and the 'what' is stated plainly ("确保隔离工作区存在" with the native-tool-first / git-worktree-fallback mechanism). This clearly matches anchor 5 rather than anchor 4, whose 'when' is weaker or less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

It carries several natural trigger terms users would actually say: "git worktree", "隔离工作区" (isolated workspace), "功能开发" (feature development), "实现计划" (implementation plan), "隔离" (isolate). It sits between anchor 3 (missing common variations) and anchor 5 (comprehensive synonyms/extensions), matching anchor 4's 'good coverage with a few natural terms missing' — e.g. no mention of 'branch', 'parallel development', or '.worktrees'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche — workspace isolation via worktrees — with distinct triggers ('隔离工作区', 'git worktree', '原生工具') that no generic git or environment-setup skill would fire on. Minimal overlap risk, matching anchor 5; anchor 4 would require demonstrable overlap with a closely related skill, which is not the case here.