Conciseness

The body never explains concepts Claude already knows — every line is an operational rule, so it avoids the padding of the anchor-1/2 examples — but it is still not tight: the 执行约束 and 记录稳定约束 sections contain verbatim-duplicated bullets ("多个资源名要求同一时间戳时，只取一次并复用"、"复用 JSON 已返回字段，不以 --verbose/raw/pretty 重复请求"、"新增或更新只使用真实返回的 ID 回读…"、the TodoWrite rule and hasMore/partial_success rule each appear twice), and the two form-share answer transcripts are spelled out twice at full length. This fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than 'noticeably verbose with padded explanations'.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable throughout: exact CLI invocations with all flags ("dws aitable +record-query --base-id <ID> --table-id <ID> [--record-ids <IDs>] [--field-ids <IDs>]…"), exact JSON payloads ("--tables '[{\"name\":\"<表名>\",\"fields\":[{\"fieldName\":\"<字段名>\",\"type\":\"text\"}]}]'", singleSelect config "{\"options\":[{\"name\":\"<选项>\"}]}"), and a copy-paste-ready two-line answer template with concrete ID examples. Commands cover the common cases comprehensively.

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step flows are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the psql flow ("先用 -d <baseId> -l 发现逻辑表，再用 -t <tableId> 查看列类型，使用返回的 Name 执行 LIMIT 3 最小查询，成功后才以 -c <SQL> 执行正式只读查询"), write-then-verify ("写后按任务结果契约验证；不能仅凭退出码宣称成功" plus 读回 with real IDs), import-file confirmation gate ("首次调用先触发 Runtime 确认门禁，取得明确确认后由执行方追加 --yes"), invalid-cursor recovery, and the 错误最短路径 loop ("错误提供 actions/available_flags 时只按其中的 next_command 修正一次"). Destructive/batch operations all carry explicit validation, so the workflow-clarity cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: the body is a routing layer (Golden Route table, simple-leaf table, and a well-signaled 按需加载 trigger→reference table), and every referenced path (references/aitable/*.md, references/aitable-record-ops.md, references/aitable-section.md, references/intent-guide.md, references/aitable.md) exists one level deep in the bundle. Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5: the scripts in scripts/ are referenced only generically ("本 Skill 明确发布的脚本可编排 dws") with no path links, and the highly specialized 表单分享用法回答契约 and 返回值评审专用查询 sections with full example transcripts are inlined where aitable/aitable-form.md already exists as the natural home.

Specificity

The opening what-statement "钉钉 AI 表格（多维表）业务操作" is a generic noun phrase, but the when-clause enumerates many concrete capabilities ("建表、查写记录、字段、记录评论、访问密钥（API Key）、批量导入 CSV 或 JSON、导出、仪表盘、图表、上传附件、数据源配置与同步"). This matches 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps' (views, automation workflows not named as actions) rather than the fully action-verb-driven anchor 5.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: what = "钉钉 AI 表格（多维表）业务操作" with an enumerated capability list, and when = "Use when 用户需要操作…" with concrete trigger phrases plus explicit contract-review triggers ("当用户明确要求 CLI 契约评审、核对 aitable 合成 JSON 回执、dry-run…必须加载本 Skill"). Anchor 4 ('when could be more explicit') does not apply since the when-clause is maximally explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage with synonyms: "AI 表格/多维表/Base/Table", "SQL/PostgreSQL/SELECT/JOIN", "CSV 或 JSON", "dry-run", "命令参数", "Help/Schema 契约", "恢复方案", "按任务 ID 查询同步状态或审批数据同步". These are exactly the phrases a user would say, matching the synonym-and-extension coverage of the anchor-5 example.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description has a clear niche (DingTalk AI Table/Base operations) and actively de-conflicts with sibling skills: "不做电子表格单元格读写或单元格批注（走 dingtalk-misc）、文档编辑（走 dingtalk-doc）；听记待办入表先用 dingtalk-minutes 提取". Explicit negative boundaries plus distinct product-specific terms (多维表/Base/应用模式) give minimal conflict risk.