Conciseness

The body is dense, operational prose with no tutorial padding — e.g., "每个要点标记 given／inferred／unknown" and "导出整个 #canvas 为 PNG，推荐 2 倍像素" — and it delegates definitions to CanvasGuide.md rather than re-teaching BMC. It misses anchor 5 because the Gotchas section restates module semantics ("渠道描述获客、成交、交付路径；客户关系描述如何建立与维系互动…资源是…业务是…伙伴是外部参与者") that overlap CanvasGuide.md's calibration role; it is well above anchor 3 since nearly every sentence is instruction rather than explanation.

Actionability

The core command is copy-paste ready ("bun "$SKILL_DIR/Tools/Render.ts" --input "$WORK_DIR/model.json" --output "$WORK_DIR/model.html""), with exact flags ("--width 1200 至 --width 2400"), a concrete in-page audit hook ("window.businessModelAudit() 提供块数、缺项、推测和几何溢出检查"), and an Examples section covering the three common input scenarios. As written, the guidance is fully executable with specific examples covering common cases, matching anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: scope confirmation → labeling (given/inferred/unknown) → JSON prep in a unique temp dir → render → browser check ("等待字体就绪，检查九格顺序、全部文本与溢出") → PNG export at 2x → full-image and zoomed inspection, plus recovery loops ("渲染器拒绝过长／过多条目时，整理输入后重跑，不绕过校验") and delivery rules (drafts stay in temp, only accepted artifacts delivered). This matches anchor 5's explicit-validation-with-error-recovery profile.

Progressive Disclosure

The in-body structure is good — clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to CanvasGuide.md, Tools/Render.help.md, Example.json, and Example.png — but none of these files (nor Tools/Render.ts) exist in the evaluated bundle, so the split content and render pipeline are unavailable and navigation dead-ends. Per the rubric's bundle-structure guideline this is more than anchor 4's "minor organization gaps", though the body's own organization keeps it above anchors 1–2; it lands at anchor 3, where the reference layer is present but defective.

Specificity

The description states concrete actions and artifacts — "整理成九模块商业模式画布卡片，交付 PNG 与可修改的 HTML" — with enumerated inputs ("项目介绍、访谈、产品资料或商业计划") and a named method (Business Model Canvas per《商业模式新生代»). It falls short of anchor 5 because the action list is essentially one organizing action plus deliverables (the JSON output and canvas-update workflow from the body are unmentioned), but exceeds anchor 3 since inputs, transformation, and outputs are all concrete.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: what it does ("把用户提供的…整理成九模块商业模式画布卡片，交付 PNG 与可修改的 HTML") and when to use it ("USE WHEN 用户调用 ljg-business-model、要求画商业模式画布、九宫格商业模式或把商业信息做成画布卡片"), with concrete trigger phrases and an additional NOT FOR exclusion list. This matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are well covered: "要求画商业模式画布", "九宫格商业模式", "把商业信息做成画布卡片", plus the exact invocation name "ljg-business-model". Not anchor 5 because common variants like "商业模式九宫格", "BMC", or "商业模型画布" are absent; clearly above anchor 3 since multiple natural trigger phrases are present rather than just domain keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (nine-module Business Model Canvas card generation) with distinct triggers, and the "NOT FOR 普通商业分析、投资估值、Lean Canvas 或只解释商业模式概念" clause actively prevents overlap with adjacent business-analysis skills — minimal conflict risk per anchor 5.