Conciseness

The body is mostly load-bearing (concept definitions, gotchas, output spec are skill-specific knowledge, not things Claude already knows), but the same rules are repeated across sections: the conclusion-structure rule ("具体试压 -> 抽象规则 -> 回到现象") appears in 「风洞如何进入结论」(lines 34-36), again in Gotchas (lines 62-64), and a third time in 输出要求 (line 95); the wind-tunnel-is-internal-not-a-section rule likewise appears three times. Not 4 because this repetition is more than minor trimming; not 2 because there is no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance dominates the output side: exact commands ("date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S", "date \"+%Y-%m-%d %a %H:%M\""), a copy-paste org-mode template, a hard heading whitelist (输入/母题/结构/结论), the ASCII-connector rule, and three worked examples showing the full pipeline. Not 5 because the analytical core itself (how to actually derive a 母题 or run the internal wind tunnel) is conveyed only through abstract directives like "送进风洞校准" and "锁定基准预测" with no intermediate worked detail.

Workflow Clarity

A sequence is recoverable (input → 母题 → 结构卡 → internal wind tunnel → 结论 → write file, and the examples walk it end-to-end), and there is one explicit validation checkpoint ("保存后读回文件并报告路径"). But the steps are never enumerated in one place — they are distributed across 理解契约, 风洞如何进入结论, 19 Gotchas bullets, and 输出要求 — and the "Workflow Routing" table delegates the actual workflow to a file the reader must chase, so checkpoints other than the final read-back are implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The only navigation element, the Workflow Routing table, points to `Workflows/FindStructure.md`, which does not exist in the bundle (no Workflows/, references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present) — a dangling reference the skill depends on for its core workflow. Beyond that, ~130 lines of rules and a 19-bullet Gotchas list are all inlined with no signaling of what is core vs. detail. Not 3 because a broken primary reference plus fully inlined detail content matches 'minimal structure / references buried' more than 'some structure'.

Specificity

The description lists three genuine actions — "找出一段信息中母题级别的结构", "把抽象关系展开回具体可见的现象", "再用风洞检验关键因果与边界" — but they are phrased in the skill's own metaphorical vocabulary ("风洞") rather than concrete operations, so it sits between '1-2 concrete actions' and 'several specific actions'. It is not below 3 because real actions are explicitly stated, and not 4 because the actions stay abstract and the mechanism of delivery is never named.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is the three-step action chain (找出结构 → 展开回现象 → 风洞检验因果与边界), and 'when' is the "USE WHEN user says ..." clause with concrete trigger phrases, reinforced by "仅当用户明确要求时" for optional expansion and a "NOT FOR" exclusion list. This matches the anchor that clearly and explicitly answers both what and when.

Trigger Term Quality

Five quoted natural trigger phrases — '找结构', '母题是什么', '结构风洞', '背后的结构', '不要只做AB测试' — plus an English condition "wants the generative mechanism beneath a problem". These are exactly what a user of this skill would say, with synonym-level coverage; no file extensions apply to this task type, so nothing is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is highly distinctive — motif-level structure plus wind-tunnel validation is unlike any generic skill — and the "NOT FOR 普通摘要、单个类比、事实查询" clause fences off the closest overlapping categories. Not 5 because generic-sounding triggers like '找结构'/'背后的结构' could still fire on routine structure-analysis requests where a simpler skill would do.