Conciseness

The body is dense and explicitly refuses to teach known concepts ("不教'什么是 i2v'"), with every table row carrying a rule or pitfall. Not 5: provenance dates ("2026-06-10~12", "2026-06-12 实测"), internal ticket IDs (LL-071), and origin-story color ("出生：EP01...真金白银的坑") are tokens that could be trimmed without losing guidance; still clearly above anchor 3's 'mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation'.

Actionability

Concrete, executable fixes appear throughout ("PNG 输入加 -loop 1", "Keep cartoon 句 + Do not realistic 双保险", hard routing table, 30-second four-question acceptance check). Not 5 because the key executable artifacts — prompt recipes and render scripts — live in referenced files (prompt-book-v0.1.md, build-animatic.mjs) that are not present in the bundle, so the body itself contains no copy-paste-ready blocks; well above anchor 3's pseudocode/missing-details level.

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step 流程 is clearly sequenced with each step pointing to its source of truth, and validation is explicit: the animatic checkpoint ("行为刹车：烧贵素材前先用静帧+占位拼粗剪验证节奏"), the 3-failure degradation plan ("3 连败降级预案"), and per-shot acceptance questions form feedback loops appropriate to a batch/expensive generation workflow. Matches the 5 anchor's explicit validation steps with error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep and clearly signaled at each step ("范例 shot-plan-v0.1.md", "范例+配方 prompt-book-v0.1.md"), with the design principle stated explicitly ("每步指向真相源，不复制"). Not 5 because no bundle files exist — references/, scripts/, and assets/ are absent — so every referenced detail file (prompt-book, review-protocol, edl-v1.mjs, assets/README.md, ../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/narrative-clarity.md) is external and unverifiable, breaking navigation when the skill ships alone; better than anchor 3's buried/inline-content issues.

Specificity

The description names several concrete pipeline stages ("图（关键帧锁确定性）→ 视频（i2v 给活气）→ 后期（剪辑做节奏）") and concrete deliverables ("charter+分镜+prompt book+素材账本+EDL 驱动的成片"). Not 5 because the stages are stated as roles rather than executable actions and lean on domain jargon (i2v, EDL); clearly above anchor 3, which expects only 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

Both what and when are explicit: the pipeline/Output lines answer "what does this do" concretely, and an explicit "Use when:" clause lists concrete trigger phrases (plus a "Not for:" exclusion clause). This matches the 5 anchor exactly; anchor 4's weaker 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when: 做动画短剧/角色 IP 短片、猫咖日记系列新集、图生视频管线、剧情类 AI 视频" covers several natural phrasings a user would actually say. Not 5 because common synonyms and variations (e.g. "动画视频", "anime", English terms) are missing, and "猫咖日记系列" is an internal project name rather than a general user term; well above anchor 3's partial keyword coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Not for: 录屏/教程/showcase 视频（用 video-forge）、单张图生成（用 image-generation）、PPT（用 ppt-forge）" explicitly routes away from the closest sibling skills, and the niche (generated narrative animation) has distinct triggers. Minimal conflict risk, matching the 5 anchor.