Conciseness

Every section earns its tokens: a tight scope list, three-line exclusion list, five-step workflow, a six-item output contract, one executable command, and a single pointer to the reference file. There is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the "lean and efficient; every token earns its place" anchor; level 4 is ruled out because no padded passages could be trimmed.

Actionability

There is an executable command ("python3 skill-quality-gate/scripts/quality_report.py --root . --strict"), a concrete six-item output contract with P0/P1/P2 ordering, and a concrete modification gate ("先输出问题清单和最小改动面，再实施修改"). It stops short of level 5 because there is no worked example of a PASS/PARTIAL report and step 3's fact/inference/missing-evidence recording is stated but not shown how, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step 审查流程 is clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint ("优先运行包内已有的 smoke test…失败时保留原始错误") and a dedicated 验证 section that scopes what the script can and cannot prove. It falls below level 5's anchor because there is no explicit re-check loop after fixes and no per-dimension checklist in the body (deferred to the reference); it clearly exceeds level 3, whose anchor has missing or implicit checkpoints. The destructive/batch cap does not apply since the skill is read-only by default.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview (适用范围, 不适用场景, 审查流程, 输出契约, 验证) with the detailed scoring criteria correctly split into a real, one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference ("详细评分维度见 [质量评分表](references/quality-rubric.md)") and the verification script in scripts/quality_report.py — both verified to exist in the bundle. This matches the level-5 anchor exactly; level 4's "minor organization gaps" does not apply.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete evaluation targets — "触发边界、内部流程、输出契约、验证方式和回归质量" — plus explicit use cases ("审查或优化现有 Skill、发布前做行为质量检查、比较修改前后的 Skill 质量") and boundaries ("默认只读，不替代仓库结构校验或跨设备同步"). This is multiple specific actions with comprehensive coverage, matching the level-5 anchor; level 4 is ruled out because there are no meaningful coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the "what" ("评估 Codex Skill 的触发边界、内部流程、输出契约、验证方式和回归质量") and a concrete "when" clause ("用于审查或优化现有 Skill、发布前做行为质量检查、比较修改前后的 Skill 质量"). This matches the level-5 anchor with concrete trigger phrases; level 4 is ruled out because the "when" is explicit, not merely improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present — "审查" (review), "优化" (optimize), "发布前…质量检查" (pre-release quality check), "比较修改前后" — giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of the level-5 anchor (comprehensive synonyms/extensions) because common variations like "评估/audit Skill 质量" or "Skill 质量报告" are not covered, but it clearly exceeds level 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — behavioral quality evaluation of Codex Skills — and explicitly disclaims adjacent skills ("不替代仓库结构校验或跨设备同步"), minimizing conflict risk. This matches the level-5 anchor's "clear niche with distinct triggers"; level 4's "minor overlap risk" does not apply given the explicit exclusions.