Conciseness

The body is dense and information-rich with no filler explanations of known concepts, but it is interleaved with pervasive version/date archaeology ('2026-08-23 v2.2 修正轮', 'v0.3 = v0.2 + E5 自评回灌禁区', '（v0.1 增，Sol 刀③）', '（v0.2 增，宪法 E0）', '（v0.1 修正——Sol 刀①）') and provenance narration ('2026-07-16-alden-dialogue-distillation.md') that is not confined to a deprecated/old-patterns section. Per the time-sensitive-information guideline this keeps it at 3 rather than 4, though the per-token information density keeps it above 2.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: two complete copy-paste-ready YAML contract templates (metric_birth_certificate and intervention_card) with per-field fill guidance, a gated E0 three-question checklist with explicit decision rules, a five-disease table with concrete 判据/检法/处置, an explicit intervention chain, and specific formulas (paired regression retention rate = 两版都成功的数量 / 旧版成功数量, denominator-zero and unpaired-extrapolation rules).

Workflow Clarity

The sections form a gated sequence (〇 E0 资格门 → 一 出生证 → 二 设计自检 → 三 体检 → 四 干预证 → 五 落地约束) with explicit checkpoints and error-recovery loops ('任一答不出即不发牌照', intervention_falsifier, rubric_reopen_trigger, exhaustion hard-stops). It is not 5 because the top-level routing between the new-metric path (〇–二) and the existing-asset audit path (三–四) is implicit, and the dense prose makes the sequence extraction effortful.

Progressive Disclosure

The body has clear section structure and mostly one-level-deep external references (docs/architecture/eval-philosophy.md, ../capability-evolution/SKILL.md), but there are no bundle files at all — all ~250 lines are inlined in one file — and at least one reference is dangling ('适用对照与原文入口见选材与方法研究索引' names an index without a link or path). Specialized comparison-method detail in section 四 is inline content that could live in a reference file.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions ('设计判断依据、指标、校准，或修改/审计 eval') and concrete deliverables ('测量与校准草案或指标出生证（纵向eval含触发契约），或病名+处置'), with minor abstraction in phrases like '判断依据'. It is not 5 because some capability statements remain abstract rather than fully concrete actions, and not 3 because it goes well beyond naming the domain with 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Both what and when are answered explicitly with concrete trigger phrases: 'Use when: 要判断 Agent 是否专业、省心或真正改善…' gives the when, 'Output: 测量与校准草案或指标出生证…或病名+处置' gives the what, and 'Not for:' adds explicit negative triggers. The 'Use when' clause is present, so no cap applies.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasing is present ('要判断 Agent 是否专业、省心或真正改善', '指标', '校准', '审计', 'eval') alongside explicit sibling-skill names. It falls short of 5 because common synonyms a user might say — 评估/评测, benchmark, 测试集/评测集 — are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (designing/auditing the measurement system itself) with distinct triggers, and the 'Not for: 单次交付(quality-gate)、外部claim(source-audit)、摩擦诊断(code-as-harness)' clause explicitly demarcates the nearest confusable siblings, giving minimal conflict risk.