Conciseness

AUTO_PROCEED semantics are restated in four separate sections (Constants, Checkpoint execution rule, Gate 1, Key Rules), the provisional/accepted distinction appears three times, and the Stage 5/Stage 6 numbering explanation ("it is numbered Stage 5 here because this consolidated pipeline counts the writing handoff...") is meta-commentary that adds no operational value. Mostly operational and non-generic, but noticeably tighten-able — anchor 3 rather than 4, and not 2 since nothing pads with concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete and largely executable: per-stage invocation commands ("/idea-discovery \"$ARGUMENTS\" — AUTO_PROCEED: $AUTO_PROCEED"), a literal bash block resolving RUN_STATE/ITER_LOG/WATCHDOG, exact run_state.py command lines, and ready-made checkpoint message templates. Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5: "Write a final research status report (same as before)" is a dangling reference, and "/monitor-experiment [server]" is an unexplained placeholder.

Workflow Clarity

Clear Stage 1→5 sequence with selection gates, sanity-check-first validation ("runs the smallest experiment first... auto-debugs failures (up to 3 attempts)"), a bounded review feedback loop ("repeat until score ≥ 6/10 or 4 rounds reached"), explicit fail-gracefully rules, and a resume-state phase table. Validation is present so no batch-operation cap applies, but the dual "Stage 5 / Stage 6" numbering and the scattered AUTO_PROCEED rules introduce minor incoherence — anchor 4 rather than 5.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and ~50 lines of run-state/watchdog machinery plus full report templates are inlined in SKILL.md where a reference file would serve better. The references it does make ([external-cadence.md](../shared-references/external-cadence.md), [resumable-runs.md](../shared-references/resumable-runs.md), the output protocols) are clearly signaled and one level deep, and section structure is good — anchor 3 rather than 2 (structure and signaling are present) and short of 4 (substantial content that should be separate remains inline with no offloading bundle).

Specificity

"from a broad research direction through idea discovery, experiments, and review all the way to a polished paper PDF" lists several concrete pipeline actions with a tangible end artifact. It is not a 5 because coverage has minor gaps (literature survey, ablations, writing sub-steps are not mentioned), and not a 3 because it names more than 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is the concrete pipeline ("idea discovery, experiments, and review all the way to a polished paper PDF") and the "when" is an explicit "Use when user says ..." clause with quoted trigger phrases. Anchor 5 fits; anchor 4's caveat (a vaguer "when") does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers "全流程", "full pipeline", "从找idea到投稿", "end-to-end research", and "complete autonomous research lifecycle" give good natural coverage including bilingual synonyms and a colloquial phrase. Not a 5 because common English variants such as "from idea to paper", "autonomous research", or "write and submit a paper" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Full end-to-end research pipeline" carves a clear umbrella niche distinct from its component workflows, but triggers like "end-to-end research" carry minor overlap risk with closely related sub-skills (idea-discovery, auto-review-loop, paper-writing). Distinct but not minimal-conflict, so anchor 4 rather than 5.