Conciseness

The ~280-line body inlines extensive incident history and dated revision narratives — e.g. "F041 教训：AC 全打勾，但operator的原始需求…根本没进 AC", "Why（F209 反思 2026-05-23）: Phase B alias registry: AC-B1~B5 全 ✅…", and "2026-07-15 修订：raw keyword 自动 BLOCK 误杀正常文本" — which is padding that competes with operational instructions. It is above 1 because most of the underlying rules are project-specific and non-obvious rather than generic explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the repeated lesson storytelling and inline date-stamped revisions are clearly unnecessary at this volume.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact commands ("curl -sf http://localhost:3004/health", "node scripts/check-hotfix-pattern.mjs", "pnpm check:architecture-ownership", "git status --short | rg '^.. [^/]+\.(png|jpe?g|webp|...)$'"), exact keyword lists for the tail scan, and a copy-paste-ready Quality Gate Report template covering the common cases. Confirmed not 4 because commands, expected outputs, and the report format are all specified with no material gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The process is a clearly sequenced Step 0 through Step 8 with explicit validation checkpoints (BLOCK rules, "任一命中 → BLOCK", "不得挑绿灯报告、隐去红灯") and error-recovery feedback loops ("Gate 未通过时: P1 遗漏 → 补完再过 gate", "修到绿灯再交付"). Matches the anchor-5 pattern of explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

The body has real structure (named sections, Quick Reference table, report template) and signals external references with explicit paths ("schema: `../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/close-gate.md`", "执行细则：`../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/vision-evidence-workflow.md`") — but no bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and large blocks that belong in separate reference files (the 60-line Dogfood-Your-Slice section, the close-gate keyword matrix, all incident-history narratives) are inlined in one monolithic file. Fits anchor 3 better than 2 because references are present and clearly signaled even though much content that should be separate is inline.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "愿景对照 + spec 合规 + 验证" (vision check + spec compliance + verification), "整理风险匹配的自证" (assemble risk-matched evidence), and a concrete output artifact "Spec 合规报告（含愿景覆盖度）" (spec compliance report with vision coverage). Falls short of 5 because the actions are terse labels rather than fully enumerated capabilities, and above 3 because multiple specific actions plus a defined output are named.

Completeness

Both "what" (self-check gate performing vision check, spec compliance, and verification, producing a compliance report) and "when" ("Use when: 准备对交付作完成声明、需要整理风险匹配的自证") are explicitly present, plus a "Not for" boundary clause. Not 5 because the "when" clause uses formal phrasing rather than concrete natural trigger phrases, which anchor 5 requires; clearly above 3 since the when-clause is explicit, not weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

The description's own "Use when: 准备对交付作完成声明、需要整理风险匹配的自证" contains relevant terms (完成声明, review) but the phrasing is formal and misses common natural variations like "开发完了" or "自检" — those natural phrases only appear in the separate `triggers` frontmatter field, not in the description itself. Not 4 because keyword coverage within the evaluated description text is partial and jargon-leaning ("风险匹配的自证").

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche (pre-completion self-check by the author) and explicitly disambiguates sibling skills: "Not for: 收到 review 反馈（用 receive-review）、merge（用 merge-gate）". This is the anchor-5 pattern of a distinct niche with minimal conflict risk.