Conciseness

The body is densely operational with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every sentence carries a workflow rule. Minor repetition of caching/reuse rules across the intro and SDK section ("本会话已有且仍有效时直接复用", "不要因加载下一 Skill 再读一次", "同一阶段连续执行不重复获取") could be consolidated, fitting 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than the lean 5 anchor.

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready state commands with exact flags and placeholder sources ("comet state propose-design <change-name> --proposal \"<candidate-summary>\"", "comet state decide-design <change-name> --proposal-hash <proposalHash> --choice <approved|rejected>", with proposalHash sourced from data.wait.proposalHash). It falls short of 5 because the core design-formation and confirmation methodology is delegated to external SDK method references rather than specified in actionable detail here.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–4 form a clear propose → decide → complete sequence with explicit checkpoints (verify the handoff Markdown matches the candidate and current sources, stop until the reconcile result is clear, reuse the existing Wait on restore, handle stale proposal hashes by re-recording with the current proposal). The failure feedback loop is present but vague ("提交失败时保留原 Run 并按具体原因处理" gives no mapping of causes to actions), a minor gap versus the 5 anchor's explicit error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

A short orchestrator body with well-signaled, purpose-stated, one-level references into per-topic docs (sdk-methods.md Design chapter, decision-point.md, classic-layout.md, edit-review.md), with load-condition rules to avoid re-reading. It is not a 5 because no references/ bundle directory exists in the provided skill bundle to verify the referenced "reference/compat.md", and references are scattered across multiple sibling skills (../comet-classic/, ../comet/) without a consolidated listing.

Specificity

"完成 Classic 技术设计并请用户确认" names the domain and exactly two concrete actions (complete the design, obtain user confirmation), matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor. It is not a 4 because the description omits the proposal, decision, and design-doc actions the body actually performs; not a 2 because the actions go beyond minimal or generic.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly and concretely: what ("完成 Classic 技术设计并请用户确认") and when ("在用户调用 /comet-design，或 Classic Runtime 进入 Design 时使用") — an explicit use-when clause with two concrete trigger conditions, matching the top anchor. Not a 4 because the 'when' is already fully explicit and specific rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

The only genuinely user-natural trigger is the literal slash command "/comet-design"; "Classic Runtime 进入 Design 时使用" describes internal runtime state, not a phrase a user would say. Common natural variations (e.g. 技术设计, 设计方案, design proposal) are missing, fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description binds to a unique slash command (/comet-design) and a specific runtime phase (Classic Runtime entering Design), creating a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk even against sibling comet-family skills, which trigger on their own commands and phases.