Conciseness

The body is dense and skill-specific throughout — e.g. the causal chain "当时卡在哪 → 谁采取了什么行动 → 共同产物或做法怎样改变 → 因而能继续做什么" and the "行动者 + 动词 + 对象 + 可见变化" formula earn their tokens. Minor trimming is possible: the intro re-narrates failure patterns already delegated to refs/failure-patterns.md, and section 5's dual-track discussion restates points from section 3, which keeps it at 4 rather than the lean 5 anchor.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete: two reusable formulas, concrete translation examples ("传话很累" → 搬运动作; "真正托付" → 交代/跟进/带材料回来), a six-category fact/contribution/causal/method/image/expression checklist, and a real template in assets/story-map-template.md. It is not a 5 because a few directives stay directional ("选能解释变化的少数节点", "画幅按解释难度分配") without a worked mini-example showing how to apply them.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered sections 1-6 give an explicit sequence (audience → reconstruct material → select nodes → visible actions → layout → verify → handoff routing), and section 6 is an explicit validation checklist with a feedback loop: "对局部修图同时指定区域、角色与台词归属；修后复看全图，防止另一处被悄悄改写" (fix → re-check the whole). Delivery routing per output format closes the sequence. This matches the 5 anchor's clear sequence, explicit validation, and error-recovery loop.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good in principle — one-level-deep, descriptively signaled links like "具体反例见 [失败模式](refs/failure-patterns.md)" and "[取材表](assets/story-map-template.md)" — but scored against the actual bundle, two of the three in-bundle references are broken: refs/failure-patterns.md and refs/pressure-cases.md do not exist (no refs/ directory), and the ../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/ files cannot be verified in this bundle. Only assets/story-map-template.md resolves. Clearly signaled but unresolvable references drop this below the 4 anchor's 'references mostly clear' to the 3 anchor's structural gaps.

Specificity

The description names the domain and several concrete deliverables — "事实与贡献图、因果分镜、载体交接稿" (fact/contribution map, causal storyboard, handoff draft) — plus the core actions of compressing multi-party experiences while "保留各方行动与变化". It is not a 5 because the 'what' is carried by 2-3 paraphrased actions rather than a comprehensive list of distinct operations.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: what ("把跨时间、多人或人机共创的真实经历讲清楚，保留各方行动与变化") and when (a four-scenario "Use when" clause), plus outputs. This matches the 5 anchor — clear what AND when with concrete triggers — and a "Not for" clause adds explicit negative scoping.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when: 长故事要压成一页/短讲、成长经历散在聊天与文档、追问人和 AI 各做了什么，或故事只剩履历、成果和能力口号" covers natural phrasings a user would actually say, including the evocative "故事只剩履历". A few common variants (e.g. 项目复盘, 整理合作经历) are absent, so it falls just short of the comprehensive 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (co-creation storytelling / 真实经历叙事) is distinct, and "Not for: 已锁定叙事的排版/出图、虚构剧情、纯技术论证或启动能力进化项目" explicitly fences off the adjacent skills it routes to (production, tech-writing, capability-evolution). Conflict risk is minimal, matching the 5 anchor.