Conciseness

Mostly efficient procedural content (templates, tables, page budgets), but it could be tightened: the venue/page-count rules are duplicated between 'Constants' and 'Key Rules' ('For IEEE venues: references ARE included in page count' appears in both), and the reviewer-routing preamble ('Before each reviewer slot, follow Selectable Reviewers...') is dense and partially redundant with Step 6's resolution note. Not the anchor-4 case, since these are more than trivial trims; not anchor 2, since there is no concept-explaining filler.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: a copy-paste-ready bash block for the style-ref helper with explicit exit-code handling (case 0/2/3/*), a concrete MCP invocation with model and config ('model: gpt-6-astra, config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}'), and concrete output templates (Claims-Evidence Matrix table, section-by-section plan, Figure Plan table, GAP_REPORT.md skeleton, PAPER_PLAN.md skeleton). Not score 4: the common cases (with/without style-ref, with/without CLAIMS_FROM_RESULTS.md) are each covered with specific instructions.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence (extract claims → structure → section planning → figure plan → citations → cross-review → output) with a feedback loop ('Apply feedback before finalizing') and error handling in the style-ref block. Minor validation gaps keep it below 5: there is no explicit final check that the section page budgets sum to MAX_PAGES after reviewer feedback is applied, and Step 6's reviewer resolution depends on external machinery ('.aris/reviewer.json', 'reviewer_route.py') that is referenced but not defined here. Above anchor 3 because validation checkpoints (helper exit codes, verdict: REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE handling, [VERIFY] citation flags) are explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill practices disclosure discipline in text ('Only load these references when needed; do not paste their full contents into the working draft'), but every referenced file is missing from the bundle: '../shared-references/writing-principles.md', 'venue-checklists.md', 'reviewer-backends.md', 'reviewer-independence.md', 'output-versioning.md', 'output-manifest.md', 'output-language.md', 'integration-contract.md', and 'tools/extract_paper_style.py' — the bundle contains only SKILL.md. Anchor 2 fits ('references are buried' / broken): a consumer of this bundle cannot navigate to any of the core detail the workflow depends on.

Specificity

The 'what' is concrete but singular: 'Generate a structured paper outline from review conclusions and experiment results' names the domain and one action with its inputs, but does not enumerate the concrete outputs the skill actually produces (claims-evidence matrix, figure plan, citation plan, gap report). Fits anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'); not 4, which requires several specific actions listed.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: what — 'Generate a structured paper outline from review conclusions and experiment results'; when — 'Use when user says "写大纲", "paper outline", "plan the paper", "论文规划", or wants to create a paper plan before writing.' This is a direct match for anchor 5; anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural trigger coverage including bilingual synonyms: '"写大纲"', '"paper outline"', '"plan the paper"', '"论文规划"', and 'wants to create a paper plan before writing'. A few natural English variations ('outline the paper', 'draft an outline', 'paper structure') are missing, which matches anchor 4 ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (paper outlining from research artifacts) with distinct triggers ('paper outline', '写大纲', 'plan the paper') unlikely to fire for wrong skills. Minor overlap risk with sibling writing skills in the same pack (e.g., paper-write/paper-figure, where 'paper' alone could be ambiguous), matching anchor 4 rather than 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.