Conciseness

The body is lean and table-driven — every row specifies a field and its rule ('与告诉客人的一致', '客人自己说的称呼') with zero padding, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and no fluff. This matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: exact storage folder 'handover/', an exact filename pattern '类型-客人称呼-出发月日.md' with a fallback rule, and a complete field list per ticket type in tables. It sits at 4 rather than 5 only because no worked example of a filled ticket or a sample filename is provided, leaving a minor gap for the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-purpose skill (fill one Markdown file per handover) and the action is unambiguous: which fields, which type-specific fields, where to save, and how to name the file are all specified, with implicit checkpoints such as '承诺客人的联系时限 | 与告诉客人的一致'. Under the simple-skill exception this earns 5; it is not a destructive or batch operation, so no validation cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle exists — and the content is cleanly organized into '通用字段', '各类附加字段', and '填写要求' sections, matching the simple-skill case where well-organized sections alone warrant a 5.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete content — '占位申请、规划通话、投诉、团队、质检升级五类转交单' plus '字段、存放位置和命名规则' and the form code 'HL-CS-FORM-05' — so it lists several specific, named items rather than vague actions. It falls just below the 5 anchor because it describes the template's contents rather than fully covering what the skill does with them (e.g., create/fill tickets).

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' (a template for five handover ticket types with fields, storage location, and naming rules) but contains no 'Use when' or equivalent trigger clause, so per the judging guideline the completeness score is capped at 3 — clear 'what', 'when' absent or only weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain terms users would say are present: '转交单', '投诉', '团队', '占位申请', '规划通话', '质检升级'. A few natural synonyms/variants (e.g., '交接', '升级给质检') are missing, matching the 'good coverage, a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The company-specific form code 'HL-CS-FORM-05', the brand '海岚旅行', and the five named ticket types give it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills, matching the 5 anchor.