Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — decision tables, phase flows, and rules with no basic-concept padding — matching the 'efficient with minor over-explanation' anchor. Provenance material like the dated saga citation ('来源：2026-06-16 圆桌 saga') and ADR references are context rather than instruction and could be trimmed, keeping it below the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: a 6-phase flow with per-phase trigger conditions, Phase-1 independence rules, Open Question classification with decision-packet requirements, a copy-paste meeting-notes template, and mode-selection/mistake tables. It stays at anchor 4 rather than 5 because Mode B's startup criteria are deferred to an external file (shared-rules.md §13) and tools like routeParallel() and cat_cafe_multi_mention are named without usage detail.

Workflow Clarity

All three modes have clearly sequenced steps with real checkpoints — Phase 5 review as a misread-correction feedback loop, 2-3 round limits, operator gates, and the census handoff rule — matching the 'clear sequence with most checkpoints' anchor. Not anchor 5: Mode A has no checkpoints and Mode C's validation depends on the external decision-matrix format rather than in-body verification.

Progressive Disclosure

With no bundle files, the body serves as a clear overview (核心知识 table, Quick Reference) with well-signaled, one-level-deep external references (decision-matrix.md, shared-rules.md) — anchor 4. The 严格档 section is a long, dense inline block that could live in a reference file, and no detailed material is split out, so it falls short of the well-partitioned anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names its capabilities (创意探索、独立思考、讨论收敛), concrete outputs (共同理解、反例、取舍或结论), and explicit exclusions (已有明确 spec 直接写代码), matching the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of anchor 5 because the actions are conceptual rather than a fully enumerated, concrete operation list.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (three modes plus their outputs: 共同理解、反例、取舍或结论) and 'when' via an explicit 'Use when:' clause with concrete trigger phrases, plus 'Not for' and 'Output' boundaries — a clear match for anchor 5, well above the anchor-4 example where the 'when' is only serviceable.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases like 'brainstorm、多猫独立思考、讨论结束需要收敛、方向性问题需要多视角' give good keyword coverage, though '多猫独立思考' is environment-specific jargon and common synonyms like generic '想法' or '一起想想' phrasings are missing — fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Not for: 已有明确 spec 直接写代码、单猫执行已定方案' boundary and niche triggers (brainstorm, convergence) keep it mostly distinct from spec-execution and lifecycle skills, with only minor overlap risk against general discussion/summary skills — anchor 4, not the minimal-conflict clarity of anchor 5.