Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence (no explanation of what arXiv or literature review is) and every section drives action, but there is real duplication: 'Two failures waste months equally' appears nearly verbatim in both the verdict limits block and Important Rules, and the Codex/Gemini overlay notes at the top are meta-commentary unrelated to the task. This fits 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than the lean 5 anchor.

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable: named MCP tools with jobId polling semantics ('mcp__gemini-review__review_start', 'poll mcp__gemini-review__review_status ... until done=true'), concrete search quotas ('Try at least 3 different query formulations per claim', year filters 2024-2026), and a copy-ready report template. It stops short of 5 because Phase B's 'Known paper databases: Check against' gives venues but no URLs or lookup method, and the Phase C call is sketched as a YAML-ish prompt block rather than an actual tool invocation.

Workflow Clarity

Phases A-D are cleanly sequenced with inputs and outputs at each stage, and Phase C's cross-model verification plus the verbatim verdict limits act as an explicit checkpoint on Phase B's search results. It misses 5 because there are no error-recovery or edge-case branches (what to do when no papers surface, when the reviewer job fails or times out, or when claims are fewer than 3).

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-organized with clear section headers (Constants, Instructions by phase, verdict limits, report template, Important Rules) and no phantom or buried references — it correctly references no bundle files, and none exist. The ~25-line verdict limits block and the report template are needed on every run, so inline placement is appropriate; minor organization gaps (e.g., Important Rules mixing calibration guidance with scope rules) keep it at 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

Names the domain ('research idea novelty') and one concrete action ('verify ... against recent literature'), matching the 'domain plus 1-2 concrete actions' anchor. It stays at 3 rather than 4 because it does not enumerate several specific actions (e.g., multi-source search, reviewer verification, report output) that the body actually performs, and 2 would understate the clarity of the stated action.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ('Verify research idea novelty against recent literature') and when ('Use when user says ... or wants to verify a research idea is novel before implementing') with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the 5 anchor. Neither 4 ('when could be more explicit') nor any lower anchor applies.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers cover natural phrasings a user would actually say across two languages: '查新', 'novelty check', '有没有人做过', 'check novelty', plus the intent-level trigger 'wants to verify a research idea is novel before implementing'. This matches the comprehensive synonym coverage anchor; the neighboring 4 anchor ('a few natural terms missing') does not fit since both casual and formal variants are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (pre-implementation novelty verification of research ideas) with distinct triggers including unique Chinese phrases ('查新', '有没有人做过') that no generic skill would claim, giving minimal conflict risk. It fits the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor, not the 4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.