Conciseness

The body is dense and operational throughout: it never explains concepts Claude already knows and almost every sentence carries a routing rule, a condition, or a command. A few long multi-clause sentences (e.g., the workspace/isolation paragraph) could be tightened, matching anchor 4 (efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed) rather than 5 (every token earns its place).

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands are given with full flags — `comet resume-probe . --stdin --json`, `comet classic workspace resolve <change-name> --json`, `comet state select`, `comet state next <name> --json`, `comet state transition <name> preset-escalate` — plus a bash block and explicit conditional rules ("只有 auto_resume 自动进入"). Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4: `comet task` and `comet knowledge remember` are invoked without syntax (deferred to reference/scripts.md), and several commands use placeholders the reader must substitute.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (numbered sections: determine workspace → load phase → continue work) with a phase routing table, an explicit checklist of blocking decision points ("以下确认不能…跳过"), validation gates (Guard checks, Verify's single final integration review, "只有实际运行过测试或构建，才能声称完成相应检查"), and error-recovery feedback loops (context-recovery, debug-gate's investigate-then-fix, state-update rejection handling). This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, checklists); the destructive/batch cap does not apply since verification and authorization checks are explicitly required before archive/commit/push.

Progressive Disclosure

The in-body discipline is strong — each of ~11 reference files is read only under an explicit trigger with a named section (e.g., "读取 context-recovery.md 的 'Ambient Resume'", "需要状态字段含义时读 comet-yaml-fields.md"), one level deep. However, scored against the actual bundle: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present, so none of the referenced files can be verified to exist, and two inconsistent path conventions are used (`comet-classic/reference/...` inline code vs. `[任务上下文与产物语言](reference/scripts.md#…)` markdown links). This lands at anchor 3 (structure present, but organization/navigation cannot be confirmed) rather than 4-5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Comet Classic 工作流入口") and 1-2 concrete actions ("要求启动或恢复 Classic", "确认唯一可恢复的未归档 Classic change"), but never states what the skill actually does once entered (e.g., orchestrating the Open/Design/Build/Verify/Archive phases or routing to sibling skills). This matches anchor 3 (names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than 4, which requires several specific listed actions.

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit "what" ("Comet Classic 工作流入口") and a highly explicit "when" ("当用户明确调用 /comet-classic、要求启动或恢复 Classic，或 resume-probe 返回 auto_resume…时使用"). It is not a 5 because the "what" is thin — "workflow entry point" alone does not tell the reader what the skill does — matching anchor 4 (both present, one could be more specific) rather than 3, where the when would be missing or only weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural triggers are present and ecosystem-appropriate: "/comet-classic", "启动或恢复 Classic", "resume-probe 返回 auto_resume", "未归档的 Classic change". A few natural variations users might say (e.g., "继续 Classic", "Classic 流程/变更") are missing, which fits anchor 4 (good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing) rather than 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description occupies a clear niche: a proprietary workflow name (Comet Classic), an explicit slash-command invocation, and runtime-specific triggers (resume-probe returning auto_resume, unarchived Classic change) that no other skill would match. This matches anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk).