Conciseness

The body is 587 lines of densely packed guidance with long single-paragraph walls (e.g. the "产品宿主与编辑器 claim 证据" paragraph), repeated deferred/stub prohibitions across multiple sections, and embedded dated incident narratives ("F114/F115/F116 事故", "2026-04-26 教训", "S2 #4669 起") that belong in a lessons-learned reference. It is noticeably verbose and padded with historical rationale even though the underlying rules are project-specific rather than general knowledge, which keeps it above the lowest anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: `grep -E "^\| F[0-9]+" docs/ROADMAP.md | tail -1`, `pnpm check:features`, `pnpm check:design-gate-real-interaction`, exact commit message formats, copy-paste markdown blocks (Architecture cell 三行, CloseGateReport AC disposition), and checklists. Not a 5 because two guidance points resolve to "*(internal reference removed)*" and several key steps defer to external templates (../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/*) that are not part of this bundle, leaving gaps in what a reader can execute from the file alone.

Workflow Clarity

The multi-stage process is clearly sequenced (Kickoff Steps 0–6 → Discussion → Design Gate → Completion Steps 0–6) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: "`PASS check-feature-truth` 是 feature close 的硬证据；失败则不能 close", BLOCKED conditions, the unmet-AC three-path rule with no fourth option, and Quick Reference + Common Mistakes tables. This matches the top anchor of clear sequence, explicit validation, and error-recovery checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers are clear and external references are explicitly pathed and one level deep, but no references/ bundle exists and large bodies of contract detail that clearly belong in separate files are inlined into SKILL.md — the F303 admission contract, F192 Eval Contract, F281 birth-three-questions, editor/product-host claim rules (~100+ lines of Design Gate gate law) and the Completion guardian/deferred ceremony. Structure exists, but content that should be split out is inline, which is the mid anchor, not the "most content appropriately placed" of 4.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete lifecycle phases and deliverables — "立项、需求讨论、Design Gate、…feature 完成/验收" and "Output: Feature 聚合文件 + BACKLOG 索引 + 真相源同步" — several specific actions/artifacts with minor gaps. Not a 5 because the framing verb "从原始诉求…到实际交付与真相同步" is phase-level abstraction and "真相同步" is unexplained project jargon rather than a fully concrete operation.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Feature 从原始诉求、设计确认到实际交付与真相同步" plus concrete Output artifacts) and when (an explicit "Use when:" clause with concrete trigger phrases, further bounded by a "Not for:" exclusion). This matches the top anchor's structure of concrete what + explicit when.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when: 立项、需求讨论、Design Gate、愿景或范围发生偏移、feature 完成/验收，或operator要求'先看真页面'" gives good, natural trigger coverage in both languages. Not a 5 because common variants like "开个新功能"/"new feature"/"F0xx done" appear only in the separate triggers list, not in the description text itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (feature lifecycle management with F-numbers, Design Gate, acceptance) with distinct triggers, and the explicit "Not for: 不涉及 Feature/Design Gate 真相更新的纯代码实现、review、merge（那些有专门的 skill）" clause minimizes overlap with sibling skills.