Conciseness

The body is telegraphic with zero padding of concepts Claude already knows, but rules are restated across sections ("another status message is not continuation" appears twice; "reread current facts before acting" recurs three times) and the return-registration block is a 23-line unbroken wall of policy. Anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed) fits; not 5 because the redundancy and tangled registration paragraph mean not every token earns its place.

Actionability

Concrete tool calls with field-level specificity are given — `cat_cafe_resolve_development_work` with `scope { featureRef: "feature:F310", phaseKey: "B", acceptedRevision: "<40-character Git SHA>" }`, `sourceRefs: ["message:<sourceMessageId>"]`, named basis values, disposition verbs (resume/adopt/bind/admit), and per-error-code responses. Not 5 because no single complete example call shows all required fields together for a common case; the guidance is mostly executable with minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clear decision procedure is present: read source state (pending / accepted+admitted / accepted+needs_clarification / declined) → choose one of five explicit branches → follow the returned disposition → "Completion check" verifying the typed result carries the canonical Task owner ref/revision/receipt, with named error-recovery loops (retry scope_unverifiable, needs_clarification on unresolvable time). Not 5 because there are no checklists and the sequence is buried in dense prose, especially the registration sub-workflow.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized (Read the exact source first; Choose one branch with five sub-branches; Clarification discipline; Completion check), but the skill is a single ~148-line file with no reference files at all, and advanced material — notably the development-return registration regime — is inlined when it plausibly belongs in a separate reference. Anchor 3 (some structure, content that should be separate is inline) fits; not 4 because inlining this much dense policy is more than a minor organization gap.

Specificity

The only stated capability is "Output: offer、Task 接责/续接或 abstain" — three concrete outputs, but expressed as unexplained domain shorthand with no elaboration of what those actions entail, matching anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than 4, since the coverage gaps are not minor. Not 2 because the actions named are concrete, not generic.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit — "Use when 托付、获准开发或 Phase 续做" (when, plus negative conditions "Not for 随口提及...") and "Output: offer、Task 接责/续接或 abstain" (what) — but the 'what' is a terse jargon fragment rather than a clear capability statement, so the 'when' side is stronger than anchor 4's "could be more explicit" implies while falling short of anchor 5's "clearly and explicitly answers both". Not 3 because an explicit 'Use when' clause is present.

Trigger Term Quality

"托付", "获准开发", and "Phase 续做" are relevant domain keywords, but they are formal coinages rather than the natural user phrasings the body itself documents ("帮我接住", "继续 Phase C", "接着把这个阶段做完"), so common variations are missing. Not 4 because the natural phrases a user would actually say never appear in the description.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The custody/entrustment niche ("Task 接责/续接", "abstain") is mostly distinct with domain-specific triggers, but "托付" (entrusting work) overlaps conceptually with generic task-management and reminder skills, giving minor overlap risk per anchor 4. Not 5 because the core trigger concept is not unique against a task-management skill family.