Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — no generic concept explanations — and its content (evidence-state semantics, dataset-specific durability codes, the four-way action resolver) is system-specific knowledge Claude could not infer. However, the LAST_KNOWN/CURRENT discipline is stated three times (契约 §1, §2, and again in step 6) and 不适用 overlaps 安全边界, so minor trimming would earn level 5; it is well above level 3's 'noticeable padding'.

Actionability

Most steps ship executable commands — "python scripts/governance/personal_status.py", "aic validate", "aic diff <target>", "python scripts/durability/rpo_check.py --json", and the verified "python skills/personal-ai-operations-review/scripts/personalization_status.py --json" — plus a concrete output report template. Minor gaps keep it at level 4: step 5 says only "检查 capability_gov.py 与 static_gov.py" and "检查 inbox open proposals" without invocation commands, and step 1 gives no concrete method for locating the repo root.

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step sequence is clearly ordered with per-domain status/evidence_state recording, an explicit failure path ("命令或路径不存在时标 UNKNOWN，先搜索仓库实际入口；不要凭旧报告猜路径"), and the action-resolver contract acting as a decision checkpoint. It sits at level 4 rather than 5 because the report-template checkpoint shows placeholder alternates (e.g. "HEALTHY / UNKNOWN") instead of explicit rules tying each domain result to the overall verdict, and step 5 lacks commands; the skill is read-only, so the destructive-cap rule does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized (适用范围/不适用/核心契约/工作流程/安全边界), the body stays at overview altitude, and the one referenced bundle script (scripts/personalization_status.py) is real and correctly pathed with behavior_metrics.py/extract_user_msgs.py as its helpers — no nested references. It scores 4 rather than 5 because the ~40-line 核心契约 block is inline material that could live in a references file for a >100-line SKILL.md, and the body never mentions the two auxiliary bundle scripts or how they relate.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of its scope: "聚合 governance、durability、aic drift、proposal、memory/model/routing 与 personalization 行为监控（纠正率/重复纠正/选择泄漏）" and "区分 NO ACTION、REVIEW、ACTION REQUIRED 与 EXTERNAL BLOCKER", naming specific metrics and outcome classes. It matches the level-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive) and is clearly above level 4, which would require notable gaps in coverage.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' (read-only ops review aggregating the six domains and classifying into four action outcomes) and 'when' (daily health checks, incident retrospectives, pre-upgrade checks, or when the user asks the quoted trigger questions), with a stated non-goal ("默认不修改 canonical"). This is the level-5 anchor (clear and explicit what AND when with concrete trigger phrases), above level 4's weaker 'when'.

Trigger Term Quality

It embeds verbatim natural user phrasings — "系统现在健康吗/需要管什么/AI 最近是不是又变难用了/个性化有没有退化" — alongside scenario triggers (日常健康检查、异常复盘、升级前检查) and domain keywords (aic drift、个性化、纠正率). This is comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms, matching the level-5 anchor rather than level 4's 'a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is tightly scoped to "已进入 OPERATIONS MODE 的 Personal AI / DSH 基础设施" — a clear niche with distinct triggers (operational review of this specific infrastructure), and its stated defaults (read-only, no silent fixes) further separate it from build/repair skills. Minimal conflict risk, matching the level-5 anchor.