Conciseness

Nearly every line is a rule, schema field, or judgment criterion, and it assumes Claude's competence without explaining known concepts. Minor trimming is needed: pending-experiment meta-commentary ('待冷启动对撞实验量化复现') and opaque provenance references ('02[51]', '04[msg7]') earn no place for an executor, keeping it below the lean 5 anchor.

Actionability

Gives concrete executable artifacts: exact file layouts ('ledger/YYYY-MM-DD.jsonl', 'runs/<session-id>.jsonl'), full episode and prediction schema field lists, parseable time_horizon formats, and mechanical tool risk tiers. It misses 5 because authoritative operational detail is delegated to files absent from the bundle ('instruction/generated.md' §3/§6, 'governance.yaml') and no filled-in example event or prediction is provided.

Workflow Clarity

The nine-ring execution sequence is explicitly ordered with '顺序即验收' (order is the acceptance criterion), each ring carries validation requirements (falsifier required, evidence refs required, guard blocks consequential actions without bound predictions), and a feedback loop exists (failed prediction → residual label plus a mandatory three-way revision choice), closed by an end-of-session persistence contract. It falls short of 5 because guard enforcement and the resident sequence form are said to live in external files not present in the bundle.

Progressive Disclosure

The body repeatedly defers authority to files that do not exist in this bundle ('instruction/generated.md' §1/§3/§5/§6, 'governance.yaml', 'mind/distill.py', 'mind/lp_evaluator.py', 'dsh/world-model/cordis.patch.yml') — the bundle contains only SKILL.md, so every reference is unresolvable. Meanwhile dense schema and state-layout material that clearly belongs in separate reference files is inlined, matching the anchor for inlined content with effectively broken/buried references rather than the 'some structure, references present' state of anchor 3.

Specificity

The description lists a concrete multi-step action chain ('恢复持久状态→建立竞争模型→显式预测→真实观察→修订模型→主动取证→决策→持久化'), covering the full protocol pipeline. It falls short of the 5 anchor because key terms ('canonical', 'Gate V0.2', 'CORE') are internal jargon rather than fully concrete actions, and is clearly above the 3 anchor since more than 1-2 actions are named.

Completeness

Both 'what' (the eight-step world-model closed-loop protocol) and 'when' ('仅用于跨会话继续、恢复开放预测、持续竞争模型、需向 canonical 提交治理提案的场景') are explicitly stated, with anti-triggers adding negative guidance. It does not reach 5 because the trigger phrases are dense and parenthetical rather than clean, concrete trigger terms a user would say verbatim.

Trigger Term Quality

Some natural phrases a user might say are present ('跨会话继续', 'Bug调试', '一次性任务'), but the load-bearing vocabulary is system-internal jargon ('外置持久认知状态', 'canonical', 'CORE', 'Gate V0.2') that users would not naturally utter. It sits above anchor 2 (generic keywords only) but below anchor 4 because common natural synonyms for the trigger scenarios are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche (externalized persistent cognitive state, cross-session open-prediction recovery, canonical governance proposals) and includes explicit anti-triggers ('跨组件≠CORE；mutation≠CORE；debug难≠CORE') to keep it from firing on routine coding tasks, giving minimal conflict risk with other skills.