Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence: each mode is defined in 1–2 lines ("单文件或单点修改、目标明确、风险低、容易验证和回滚"), and no section explains concepts Claude already knows. Every section (分类, 路由顺序, 输出契约, 验证) carries operational content, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

The 输出契约 gives a concrete, executable output schema ("模式：small | audit | medium | large | high-risk" plus 依据/允许动作/禁止动作/下一步 fields) and each category has a concrete 处理 directive, and the routing order is a numbered priority list. Not a 5 because key execution details are undefined: the "结构化 Brief" format for large tasks is never specified, and the companion skills (clarify-before-change, minimal-implementation, unified-taskflow) are named without any invocation path or pointer.

Workflow Clarity

The 路由顺序 section gives an explicit priority sequence (read-only first, high-risk writes before scale, then small/medium/large), and the 验证 section provides explicit post-classification checks (mode matches authorization, no missed high-risk writes, audit not turned into modification). Not a 5 because there is no feedback loop stated — what to do when a 验证 check fails (reclassify? escalate?) is left implicit, and the hard-break rule for large tasks lacks a recovery path.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well organized into clear sections and appropriately short for an overview, but its single external reference — "相关示例见 [multi-file-change.md](examples/multi-file-change.md)" — is dangling: no examples/ directory or bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist, so the link resolves to nothing. Per the guideline to score against the actual bundle structure, a clearly signaled but broken reference plus no bundle leaves structure present but the reference layer ineffective, matching the mid anchor rather than a 4.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions and categories — "按任务规模与风险选择执行深度", enumerating "小型直接修改、中型计划变更、大型分阶段执行，还是高风险流程", plus a concrete high-risk list ("安装工具、修改全局配置、添加 MCP 服务或 hooks、删除文件、修改权限和使用浏览器登录状态"). It stops short of a 5 because the core action (choose execution depth) is stated abstractly rather than as multiple fully concrete operations.

Completeness

Both what and when are explicitly answered: what — "按任务规模与风险选择执行深度，避免流程过度或风险失控"; when — "用于判断代码、配置、文档和工作流请求应采用..." with a concrete enumeration of high-risk trigger scenarios. This matches the top anchor of explicit 'what' plus explicit 'when' with concrete trigger phrases; it is not a 4 since the 'when' clause is specific, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good coverage of natural terms users would say: "代码、配置、文档和工作流请求", "安装工具", "修改全局配置", "添加 MCP 服务或 hooks", "删除文件", "修改权限", "使用浏览器登录状态". Not a 5 because common synonyms and variations (e.g., English equivalents, 'refactor', 'install', 'uninstall') are absent, so a few natural trigger phrases are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The distinctive high-risk triggers (MCP services, hooks, permissions, browser login state) carve out a recognizable niche, but the base scope "代码、配置、文档和工作流请求" covers virtually every request type, so the skill overlaps with nearly any change- or review-oriented skill. It could still trigger for the wrong skill, matching the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor rather than 'mostly distinct'.