Conciseness

The body is mostly concrete (audit checklist, reviewer prompt), but the dual report templates duplicate each other — "Parse the reviewer's response and write EXPERIMENT_AUDIT.md" followed by a full JSON block whose fields overlap ("verdict" and "overall_verdict", "date" and "generated_at", "auditor" and "reviewer_model") — and the dense opening blockquotes ("Before each reviewer slot, follow [Selectable Reviewers]...") could be tightened. Matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not 2 because no section explains concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: exact globs ("*eval*.py, *metric*.py, *test*.py, *benchmark*.py"), a fully specified reviewer prompt ("model: gpt-6-astra / reasoning_effort: ultra" plus a complete A-F audit checklist), and copy-paste report templates — matching 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'. Not 5 because the actual reviewer invocation is never shown as a real tool call ("spawn_agent:" is a sketch referencing out-of-bundle contracts), leaving '[list paths]' placeholders without a resolution step.

Workflow Clarity

Four clearly sequenced steps (collect artifacts → send to reviewer → parse and write report → print summary) with error-recovery handling ("unavailable selections are REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE", "emit BLOCKED/ERROR rather than a provisional PASS") — matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. Not 5 because Step 1 instructs "look in eval scripts for data loading" while simultaneously demanding "DO NOT summarize, interpret, or explain any file content", an internal contradiction, and malformed/unparseable reviewer responses are not handled.

Progressive Disclosure

The ~300-line body inlines the full reviewer prompt and two complete report templates that belong in reference files, while pointing to external files not present in the bundle ("../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md", "shared-references/reviewer-independence.md", "reviewer-routing.md", "review-tracing.md", "integration-contract.md") that are buried in blockquotes and inline prose rather than clearly signaled — matching 'some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline'. Not 4 because no bundled reference files exist to verify and the navigation structure is not laid out as an overview.

Specificity

Quotes: "check for fake ground truth, score normalization fraud, phantom results, and insufficient scope" — four concrete, domain-specific check targets, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' anchor. Not 5 because the parenthetical "same-family provisional in the base Codex mirror" is opaque jargon that dilutes the action list; not 3 since four enumerated fraud patterns exceed '1-2 concrete actions'.

Completeness

Quotes: what — "Audit experiment integrity... to check for fake ground truth, score normalization fraud, phantom results, and insufficient scope"; when — "Use when user says '审计实验', 'check experiment integrity', 'audit results', '实验诚实度', or after experiments complete before writing claims." Both are explicit with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly; 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit or specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: "check experiment integrity", "audit results", "审计实验", "实验诚实度", "after experiments complete before writing claims" — good natural-phrase coverage with bilingual synonyms, matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. Not 5 because common variants like "verify results" or "are my results real" are absent; not 3 since both English and Chinese user phrasings plus a workflow trigger are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: "Audit experiment integrity before claiming results" — a clear niche with distinct triggers, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. Not 5 because the standalone trigger "audit results" is generic enough to overlap with code-review or general audit skills; not 3 since the experiment-fraud domain and its trigger phrases are unmistakable.