Conciseness

The ~49-line body is lean: every section (核心规则, 决策阶梯, 变更预算, 安全边界, 输出契约, 验证) adds guidance Claude does not already have, with zero padding and no explanation of basic concepts. It neither dips into anchor 4's 'minor over-explanation' territory nor needs tightening anywhere.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is largely executable: the 决策阶梯 is a concrete 7-step ordered checklist ("项目中是否已有实现…" → "标准库是否足够?" → "已安装依赖是否足够?"), and 验证 names concrete evidence types ("新鲜的定向测试、validator、哈希、渲染结果或直接行为检查"). It falls short of 5 because no worked example is given — e.g. a sample 'before/after' diff or a concrete 变更预算 entry — which would make the abstract rules copy-paste applicable; it is well above 3 since the steps are specific and ordered, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear: apply the 决策阶梯, "在第一个满足请求的层级停止", write the 变更预算 before editing, then verify with "新鲜的定向测试、validator、哈希" — so the destructive/batch-operation validation cap does not apply (validation evidence is explicitly required and stale evidence rejected: "不要把 exit code 或旧产物单独当作成功证据"). It misses 5 only because the error-recovery loop (verify → fix → re-verify) is implied rather than an explicit step.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist and the body cites none — and the guideline explicitly allows a 5 for such skills with well-organized sections. The six section headers are clear, non-nested, and each is scannable, so nothing is buried or inlined that belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

The description names several concrete actions and objects — "以最小正确改动完成代码、Skill、规则、脚本、修复、重构和工作流修改，并提供可复核的验证证据" plus an explicit avoidance list ("避免不必要的辅助代码、降级路径、抽象、依赖、整文件重写和无关重构"). It is not a 5 because the actions are stated at a policy level without enumerating the concrete deliverables (e.g. what form the '可复核的验证证据' takes), and it is well above a 3 since both the action set and scope boundaries are explicit.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' — "以最小正确改动完成代码、Skill、规则、脚本、修复、重构和工作流修改，并提供可复核的验证证据"; 'when' — "用于修改代码、Skill、规则文件、脚本、辅助函数或工具，或用户要求优化、改进、重构、稳定化和增强鲁棒性的场景", an explicit trigger clause with concrete phrases. The 'when' is not merely implied (so 4 is too low) and nothing is vague (so 3's cap does not apply).

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "修改代码", "优化", "改进", "重构", "稳定化", "增强鲁棒性", "脚本", "Skill", "规则文件", "辅助函数", "工具" — terms users would actually say when requesting this behavior. Not a 5 because common variations are missing (e.g. "修复 bug", "修好", "简化", or English equivalents like 'refactor'/'fix'), leaving a few natural phrases uncovered; clearly above a 3 since multiple relevant trigger phrases are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The minimal-change niche is recognizable, but the trigger surface ("修改代码…优化、改进、重构") spans virtually any code-change request, creating real overlap risk with other engineering-discipline skills (code review, simplify, verify). It is more anchored than anchor 2's generic 'helps with document files' because the minimal-change scope and avoidance rules differentiate it, but the breadth of triggers keeps it from 4.