Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, and every section (铁律, 输出, Examples, Gotchas) carries skill-specific instructions. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because of minor redundancy: the 'textbook question' failure mode is stated in both 铁律 1 ("不教科书") and Gotcha 1 ("教科书腔…重写"), and the 凿子/钉子 metaphor is repeated across the intro, 你是, and Gotchas.

Actionability

There is real concrete guidance — the four-part answer structure (结论/形式化/论证步/边界), formalization patterns like `A = B + C` and `通才 = 协调，专才 = 干活`, a copy-paste curl command, an exact denote filename pattern, and three input-specific examples. But the core extraction steps are delegated to `Workflows/Extract.md` ("按 Workflows/Extract.md 的步骤执行"), which does not exist in the bundle, so key execution details are missing — this fits the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete… missing key details' anchor better than the 4-anchor's 'minor gaps'.

Workflow Clarity

A rough sequence exists only implicitly through the Examples ("WebFetch 获取 → 找观点骨架 → 设计 Q 链 → 写 A 三段 → org-mode 输出"), and the Gotchas provide an implicit review checkpoint ("生成后扫一遍，凡是 Q 能用一句定义打发的，重写"). However, the authoritative step list lives in the missing `Workflows/Extract.md`, so the sequence has gaps and checkpoints remain implicit rather than explicit — matching the 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned, but both referenced files — `Workflows/Extract.md` and `References/QuestionDesign.md` — do not exist anywhere in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, assets/, or Workflows/ directories are present), so the disclosure chain is broken: an agent following the skill hits dead pointers for the workflow and for the question-design patterns. This is worse than the 3-anchor ('references present but not clearly signaled') since the references are clearly signaled but missing, and lands on the 2-anchor's broken/minimal disclosure structure.

Specificity

Lists several specific concrete actions — "把核心观点抽成 Q-A 对", "Question 切要害，不教科书", "Answer 简洁清晰，有形式化收口，逻辑链完整", "读者顺 Q 链走过…复现作者整套推理" — matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not a 5 because the deliverable/output format is not stated and the metaphor "每个 A 砸下一枚钉子" replaces a concrete statement of what is produced; not a 3 because multiple distinct concrete actions are named, not just 1-2.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ("信息提问机。给一篇文章/论文/书，把核心观点抽成 Q-A 对…") and when ("Use when user says '问答', 'Q&A', 'QA', '提问', '抽取问题', '/ljg-qa', or shares an article/paper/book…Triggers when…") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly. The 4-anchor ('when could be more explicit') does not apply since both 'Use when' and 'Triggers when' clauses are present and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger coverage including synonyms in two languages and the command itself: '问答', 'Q&A', 'QA', '提问', '抽取问题', '/ljg-qa', plus the behavioral trigger "shares an article/paper/book and asks for Q-A extraction". This matches the 'comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms' anchor; the 4-anchor ('a few natural terms missing') fits less well since both the colloquial Chinese phrases and their English equivalents are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (extracting an author's argument into a question chain, not summarizing) with explicit negative boundaries — "NOT FOR FAQ generation, glossary creation, or comprehension quizzes — this is intellectual scaffolding, not study aids" — which sharply reduces overlap with study-aid/summary skills. Matches the 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' anchor.