Conciseness

Mostly efficient, operational content (contract templates, state machine, budget numbers) with no padding on basics Claude already knows, but it includes repeated war-story detail: the "单步 204,869 输入 token / cache=0" statistic is stated three times (sections 9 and 10 areas), the b21b9211 anecdote appears twice, and there is narrative incident padding ("2026-08-25 实测…用户两次发火") plus a large ASCII box that could be a bullet list. Tightening these would move it to anchor 4; it is not anchor 2 because the bulk of the body is genuinely non-obvious operational protocol.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: the contract snapshot field template (GOAL/OWN/MAY READ/OUT OF SCOPE/…), the structured BLOCKED schema with an invalidity gate, Level 0-2 read permissions with reason codes, a 7-item pre-dispatch checklist, and runnable script invocations ("session-discipline-audit.js <session id|zstd 路径>", Node ≥22 requirement). Not score 5 because some thresholds are left as unbound symbols ("最多 N 个额外文件", "连续 K 个有效动作窗口" — K is never given a number, unlike section 8's concrete budgets) and the plugin sections describe behavior without any usage or install instructions.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced: role separation (Discovery → Contract → Implementation → Validation), contract construction, dispatch with the 12-section pre-flight checklist, state-machine reporting, and a failure/recovery path (repair contract instead of full re-dispatch, persisted task-state files). Validation checkpoints are explicit (DONE requires validation evidence, BLOCKED invalidity gate, STALLED watchdog criteria). Not score 5 because validation of the overall outcome is scattered across sections rather than one closed loop, and some transitions (e.g., who runs the discipline audit and when) are implied rather than stated.

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers are clear and the two referenced scripts are real, one level deep, and signaled with usage syntax — but the SKILL.md is a ~310-line monolith that inlines content clearly suited to separate reference files (the P1/P2 plugin specifications, the 13-section Workflow orchestration contract, the reverse-case table, the model routing table), with no references/ split at all. Additionally, scripts/workflow_preflight_router.py exists in the bundle but is never referenced from the body, making part of the bundle undiscoverable. This matches anchor 3: structure present, but content that should be separate is inline.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete mechanisms rather than vague claims: "探查/实现/验证角色分离、契约快照（含负空间）、三级有界读取、单写者文件所有权、行动门槛替代轮次门槛、结构化 BLOCKED、token/工具/轮次预算、结构化结果回收与 repair-contract 恢复" — multiple specific, distinct capabilities with comprehensive coverage. Not score 4 because no meaningful capability is left out; each mechanism maps to a section in the body.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' ("把子代理派发从'监督型治理'升级为'契约型治理'" plus the enumerated mechanisms) and 'when' ("用于派发实现型子代理…设计…执行协议、审计…、或复盘…的会话"), and adds an explicit negative scope ("不用于纯问答、单轮小修改、或已有成熟任务流程的普通委派") with concrete trigger phrases. Clearly matches the anchor-5 example pattern of what + use-when in one description.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains natural phrases a user in this domain would actually say: "审计子代理空转（反复探查不产出、并行写冲突、上下文膨胀）", "复盘'子代理烧了大量 token 却没产出'的会话", "派发实现型子代理（写代码/写文件类任务）". Good coverage of both the design-time and post-mortem use cases, but some common variations (e.g., English terms like 'subagent', 'orchestration') and a few synonyms are missing, so it falls between anchors 4 and 5 — closer to 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — engineering subagent work/read/write boundaries and exit conditions — and actively disambiguates with "不用于纯问答、单轮小修改、或已有成熟任务流程的普通委派" and "只查子代理用了什么模型…" exclusion, minimizing the risk of triggering for adjacent skills. It names its own scope precisely enough that overlap with generic delegation or audit skills is minimal.