Conciseness

The body is almost purely operational — routing rules, budgets, templates, and status formats — and assumes Claude's competence without explaining known concepts, fitting the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' anchor. It is not a 5 because the ground-truth rule is stated in both the review prompt and Key Rules, and the dense reviewer-routing blockquote plus the ~50-line inline review prompt could be tightened.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact file paths (refine-logs/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md), concrete thresholds ("≤5 jobs" vs "≥10 jobs" routing, "2 patch attempts" + "2 clean reimplements"), a ready-to-run MCP call with model/config, and copy-paste templates for status blocks and result files — matching the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready' anchor. It is not below 5 since even the prompt placeholders ([paste the experiment scripts]) are inherent to a fill-in template, not vague direction.

Workflow Clarity

Six phases are clearly sequenced (parse → implement → review → sanity → deploy → collect → handoff) with explicit validation checkpoints (sanity-first gate, cross-model review before deploy, AUTO_DEPLOY=false confirmation, success-criteria check) and feedback loops for error recovery (capped debug budget, re-review max 2 rounds, escalate-to-human rule), matching the top anchor. The batch/deployment nature of the operation makes these validation loops essential, and they are all present.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: well-sectioned phases, and offloaded details are one level deep and clearly signaled with descriptive links (output versioning/manifest/language protocols in ../shared-references/, the experiment-queue manifest format in its SKILL.md). It is not a 5 because sizable chunks that would fit a references/ file are inlined (the Codex review prompt with its scope-limits block, the full debug protocol), and no bundle files exist alongside SKILL.md to carry that content.

Specificity

The description lists four concrete third-person actions — "Reads EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md, implements experiment code, deploys to GPU, collects initial results" — which matches the 'several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' anchor; it omits secondary capabilities (code review, ablation planning), keeping it below the comprehensive level-5 anchor.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Reads EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md, implements experiment code, deploys to GPU, collects initial results") and when ("Use when user says ... or has an experiment plan ready to execute") with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the level-5 anchor; the 'when' clause is explicit, not weakly implied as at level 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include natural bilingual phrases users would actually say — "implement experiments", "deploy the plan", "实现实验", "从计划到跑实验" — giving good keyword coverage, but "bridge" alone is generic and common variations like "run the experiments" or "execute the plan" are missing, so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — bridging a written experiment plan into deployed GPU experiments — is mostly distinct, with targeted triggers like "deploy the plan"; minor overlap risk remains with adjacent experiment-execution skills (/run-experiment, /experiment-queue) that could also claim "implement experiments", matching the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor.