Conciseness

The 515-line body restates the same invariants many times — "uncited entries never alter the top-level verdict / are not blocking" appears in Step 2, Step 5, 'Why opt-in', 'Effect when enabled', Key Rules, and Submission Artifact Emission, and the --soft-only no-bib-mutation invariant is repeated across Constants, Key Rules, and a ~95-line dedicated section. That is noticeably verbose even though most content is accurate operational contract rather than concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete, mostly executable guidance throughout: a copy-paste-ready mcp__codex__codex prompt template with model/config/sandbox, executable `latexmk -C && latexmk -pdf ...` command, full JSON artifact schemas, and an explicit verdict decision table. Minor gaps: `AUTO_APPLY` is referenced in Step 6 but never defined in Constants, `--apply` appears only in the Output Contract, and cite-context extraction (Step 2) has no concrete command.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-7 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: per-entry reviewer verdicts (KEEP/FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE), an aggregation step with a decision table, human-approval gating for destructive REPLACE/REMOVE changes, a recompile-and-check-warnings verification step, and defined error-recovery fallbacks (bib enumeration failure → 'unavailable', unreadable bib → BLOCKED, reviewer failure → ERROR).

Progressive Disclosure

References to shared files (reviewer-backends.md, review-tracing.md, assurance-contract.md, citation-discipline.md, etc.) are one level deep and clearly signaled, but none of them exist in this skill's bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories, and ../shared-references/ does not resolve). Additionally, large self-contained feature specs — the ~95-line soft-only mode section and the ~60-line uncited-detection section — are inlined in SKILL.md where they clearly belong in separate reference files.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete verification actions — entries are 'real, correctly attributed, and used in a context the cited paper actually supports' — plus a comprehensive failure catalogue ('hallucinated authors, wrong years, fabricated venues, version mismatches, and wrong-context citations'). This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage.

Completeness

Both 'what' (three-layer verification: existence, attribution correctness, context appropriateness) and 'when' are explicitly and concretely answered — 'Use when user says ... or before submission to ensure bibliography integrity' — with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-phrase coverage with synonyms and bilingual variants ('"check citations", "citation audit", "verify references", "审查引用", "引用核对", or before submission'), but a few natural terms a user would plausibly say are missing — 'bibliography', 'bibtex', and the '.bib' file extension. This fits the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive-with-extensions anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (bibliographic/bibliography integrity) with distinct triggers that do not overlap the sibling audits' domains (evaluation code, numerical claims). Minimal conflict risk with other skills.