Conciseness

The "Checkpoint execution rule" section fully defines the blocking/non-blocking AUTO_PROCEED behavior once, yet Phases 1, 2, and 4.5 each re-print near-identical two-mode checkpoint templates that restate the same rule, and the Phase 2 template largely duplicates Phase 1's — noticeable repetition that could be tightened, fitting anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened) better than anchor 4.

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable: concrete invocations (/research-lit "$ARGUMENTS"), numeric constants (PILOT_MAX_HOURS=2, MAX_TOTAL_GPU_HOURS=8), named output paths (idea-stage/IDEA_REPORT.md, refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md), and a full report template. Minor gaps — the Feishu notification rule checks ~/.codex/feishu.json but gives no concrete send command — keep it at anchor 4 rather than the fully copy-paste-ready coverage of anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1→2→3→4→4.5→5 are clearly sequenced, every phase has an explicit 🚦 checkpoint spelling out both AUTO_PROCEED modes, feedback loops exist (user requests changes → re-run /research-lit or Phase 2, repeat until satisfied), and the batch GPU pilots carry hard validation rules (PILOT_TIMEOUT_HOURS kill, MAX_TOTAL_GPU_HOURS budget cap, paper-only elimination fallbacks) — a clear match to anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-sectioned orchestrator overview that appropriately delegates detail to sub-skills, and its only file references (../../shared-references/output-versioning.md, output-manifest.md, output-language.md) are one level deep and clearly signaled in Output Protocols. The ~40-line inline final-report template is the direct output format and arguably belongs inline, but it is the kind of bulk content that could live in a reference file — good structure with a minor organization gap, matching anchor 4.

Specificity

"Orchestrates research-lit → idea-creator → novelty-check → research-review to go from a broad research direction to validated, pilot-tested ideas" names concrete chained components and a concrete outcome, but the actions are named sub-skills rather than first-class operations and the chain omits the research-refine-pipeline phase documented in the body — minor gaps in coverage, matching anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive coverage of anchor 5.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Orchestrates research-lit → … to go from a broad research direction to validated, pilot-tested ideas") and when ("Use when user says '找idea全流程', 'idea discovery pipeline', '从零开始找方向', or wants the complete idea exploration workflow") with concrete trigger phrases — a clear match to anchor 5, not anchor 4 where the 'when' would be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers "idea discovery pipeline", "找idea全流程", "从零开始找方向", and "complete idea exploration workflow" are natural user phrasings with useful bilingual synonyms, but common variants such as "research ideas" or "brainstorm research ideas" are missing — good coverage with a few natural terms absent, so anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pipeline-specific triggers ("idea discovery pipeline", "找idea全流程") carve out a distinct niche, but "complete idea exploration workflow" risks overlap with the sibling /research-pipeline skill described in the body as the full end-to-end flow — mostly distinct with minor overlap risk, matching anchor 4.