Conciseness

The body is terse and directive — short imperative sentences with no padding about what a debate or ASCII chart is, assuming Claude's competence. Every section instructs rather than explains, so it is not the level below where unnecessary explanation could be trimmed.

Actionability

Though instruction-only, the guidance is concrete and copy-ready: an exact 发言格式 template, six enumerated action tags (陈述/质疑/补充/反驳/修正/综合), enumerated ASCII chart types, the exact command menu, and a full org file template with `date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S` and a precise path pattern. Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable.

Workflow Clarity

The process is clearly sequenced across sections 一–六, and each discussion round has an explicit 等指令 checkpoint (可/止/深入此节/引入新人物) gating progression; the archive step is a 4-step sequence ending with "写完把文件路径报给用户" as confirmation. Not score 2, and no destructive/batch feedback-loop cap applies since this is conversational facilitation plus a single file write.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview (six numbered sections plus two role-guidance sections) that points to a single one-level-deep reference, `references/original-prompt.org`, clearly signaled with "先读 `references/original-prompt.org`"; the referenced file exists in the bundle and no scripts/assets directories are present. Not score 2, because navigation is clear and the split is appropriate rather than monolithic.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "主持人请来 3-5 位真实人物", "定义开场", "逐轮交锋", "每轮收一张 ASCII 结构图", "用户用指令控节奏", "散场后全文存入 org 笔记" — rather than vague language. Voice is third person throughout, so no specificity penalty applies.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (the opening clause detailing the roundtable mechanics) and when (the explicit "Use when user says…" trigger). Not score 2, because the when-clause is explicit rather than merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces natural terms a user would actually say — "圆桌讨论", "圆桌", "roundtable", "辩论" — alongside the descriptive "multi-perspective structured debate", giving good coverage of common phrasings. Not the level below, which would miss common variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Structured multi-perspective roundtable debate is a clear niche with distinct triggers (圆桌/roundtable/辩论), unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not score 2, since the triggers are specific enough to avoid overlap with generic discussion skills.