Conciseness

The workflow body (tables, dependency diagram, output template) is efficient, but the opening reviewer-routing blockquote ("resolve invocation → `.aris/reviewer.json` → Claude Code default (Codex MCP) with `reviewer_route.py` through the canonical helper resolver, preserving this slot's tier, fresh contexts, source/image inputs and deterministic gates") is dense boilerplate largely irrelevant to invention structuring, and Step 6 repeats its content. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not severely padded (1-2) but not clean of over-explanation (4).

Actionability

Concrete, near-executable guidance throughout: the copy-paste-ready `mcp__codex__codex` call with model and reasoning-effort config, category/drawing tables, the claim-hierarchy ASCII template, and a full output markdown template. It falls short of fully-executable (5) due to placeholders like "[Problem-Solution-Advantage summary]", the undefined consumption of `MAX_REFINEMENT_ROUNDS`, and ambiguity about which reviewer backend/contract actually applies after the routing caveat — minor gaps consistent with anchor 4.

Workflow Clarity

The seven steps are clearly sequenced and Step 6 provides an explicit validation checkpoint, but the feedback loop is missing: `MAX_REFINEMENT_ROUNDS = 3` is defined yet the workflow never says what to do when the reviewer finds problems (revise decomposition? re-validate? when to stop?). The sequence-present-but-checkpoints-implicit gap fits anchor 3 better than anchor 4, whose 'most checkpoints present' standard the absent refine-and-revalidate loop undermines.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: well-organized sections with two clearly signaled, one-level-deep references ("Load `../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md`" in a dedicated Shared References section). Not anchor 5 because the reviewer-routing protocol is inlined in a blockquote instead of being pushed to `reviewer-backends.md`, and the cross-bundle `../shared-references/` paths could not be verified to exist in the skill's environment. Still clearly above anchor 3's 'references present but not clearly signaled'.

Specificity

"Structure a raw invention idea into a formal invention disclosure" names the domain and essentially one concrete action (structuring/formalizing), restated as "formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure" rather than a list of distinct capabilities. It matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; it does not list several specific actions (4) but is far more concrete than generic domain-naming (2).

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Structure a raw invention idea into a formal invention disclosure") and when ("Use when user says ... or wants to formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure") with concrete trigger phrases — a direct match to the anchor 5 example pattern. Third-person voice is used correctly, so no penalty applies.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include "构建发明", "structure invention", "发明构建", "invention disclosure", and "formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure" — good coverage with word-order and bilingual synonyms. A few natural terms are missing (e.g., "patent disclosure", "专利", "draft an invention"), so it falls just short of the comprehensive-synonym anchor 5 but is clearly above anchor 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The patent/invention-disclosure niche is distinct and the triggers (including Chinese phrases) are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'. It is not merely 'mostly distinct' (4) — no realistic overlap with a differently-scoped skill is evident.