Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient templates rather than concept explanation, but key rules are stated redundantly: MAX_PAGES scope is defined in Constants, restated in Step 2 ('The total page budget MUST sum to MAX_PAGES'), and repeated twice in Key Rules ('Page budget is hard' and 'MAX_PAGES counts main body only'); section-count flexibility also appears in both Step 2 and Key Rules. This matches 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; a 4 would need only minor trims.

Actionability

Every step ships a concrete, fill-in markdown template (Claims-Evidence Matrix, section-by-section plan, Figure Plan, Citation Plan, output document), plus an explicit MCP call for review with polling instructions — mostly executable guidance. Minor gaps: the review prompt is a template with placeholders rather than a fully worked example, and citation verification delegates to unspecified search tooling, keeping it just below 'copy-paste ready' 5.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with defined inputs and fallbacks (AUTO_REVIEW.md → ./AUTO_REVIEW.md, ask the user if nothing exists), an explicit validation/feedback loop (send outline to reviewer, poll with bounded waitSeconds until done=true, apply feedback before finalizing), and hard checkpoints (page budget must sum to MAX_PAGES, citations must be verified or flagged [VERIFY]). This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: the body is organized into scannable step sections with templates inline where they're needed at use time, and output protocols are delegated via clearly signaled one-level links ('[Output Versioning Protocol](../../shared-references/output-versioning.md)'). Minor organization gaps: those shared-references paths live outside the skill bundle and cannot be verified to exist, and the three full venue templates plus citation rules could arguably live in a references file. Not a 3, because references are clearly signaled and most content is appropriately placed.

Specificity

The description names the domain and one concrete action — "Generate a structured paper outline from review conclusions and experiment results" — but stops at the top-level action without mentioning sub-capabilities (figure planning, citation scaffolding, venue budgeting). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; a 4 would require several specific listed actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what it does ("Generate a structured paper outline from review conclusions and experiment results") and when to use it ("Use when user says … or wants to create a paper plan before writing") with concrete trigger phrases. This directly matches the anchor 'Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include natural phrases users would say — "paper outline", "plan the paper", "论文规划", "写大纲" — with good bilingual synonym coverage. A few natural variations are missing (e.g., "outline the paper", "draft the outline", "论文大纲"), so it falls just below the comprehensive-synonyms anchor of 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear — planning a paper outline from review/experiment artifacts — with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for other skills. Minor overlap risk remains with adjacent paper-writing skills (e.g., paper-write/figure) in the same pipeline, which keeps it below the minimal-conflict anchor of 5.