Conciseness

The body is operational (no teaching of known concepts) but noticeably redundant: the cold-recovery and binding rules of §0a are restated in Step 3 and the auto-transition section, "不重复 next、select 或 check" appears in at least four places, and the §0c compatibility checks overlap Step 2's preflight. This matches 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'; not 2 because there is no padding or concept explanation, and not 4 because the repetition is substantial rather than minor.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags and placeholders ("comet state init <name> full --isolation <selected-isolation>", "comet classic openspec --agent-json -- status --change \"<name>\" --json"), plus concrete field-level checks (changeRoot, applyRequires, missingDeps, approvalHash) and explicit stop conditions. The common cases are covered end-to-end.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced workflow (0, 0a–0c, 1, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5) with explicit validation checkpoints — closure validation via "comet state artifacts <name> --json" after each artifact, entry-state verification via "comet state check <name> open", guard preflight with approvalHash — and feedback loops (re-validate on failure, re-preflight and re-confirm after content changes). Stop conditions name the exact blocked artifacts and missingDeps to report.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: separate concerns (workspace.md, decision-point.md, auto-transition.md, batch-changes.md, sdk-methods.md) are delegated to clearly signaled one-level-deep references, and no local bundle files exist so nothing is misplaced. Not 5 because some references are bare code paths rather than links, and the dense Step 2/3 dependency-closure loop logic would fit better in a reference file; not 3 because the split between inline workflow and referenced detail is mostly appropriate.

Specificity

"创建 Classic change，整理需求并请用户确认" lists several concrete actions (create the change, consolidate requirements, obtain user confirmation). Not 5 because "整理需求" does not unpack what the requirement consolidation actually covers, leaving minor gaps in coverage.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("创建 Classic change，整理需求并请用户确认") and when ("在用户调用 /comet-open，或 Classic 进入 Open、恢复初始化时使用") with concrete trigger phrases. Anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit than it is here.

Trigger Term Quality

"用户调用 /comet-open"、"Classic 进入 Open"、"恢复初始化" are natural invocation phrases, including the literal slash command. Not 5 because common variations such as "开启阶段" or "新建 change" are absent; not 3 because the core natural terms a user would say are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to a named workflow's Open phase with a specific command (/comet-open), making it mostly distinct with minor overlap risk against sibling comet phase skills (design/build). It lacks the fully self-contained niche of anchor 5 but is far more specific than anchor 3's generic overlap.