Conciseness

The body is lean with zero concept-explanation padding: every line states the file's identity, governing documents, contents, or usage rules. The one version-sensitive citation ("价目表 HL-FIN-PRC-06 V3.1") is correctly handled with the staleness caveat "规则有变化时，以现行材料为准", so no token is wasted or misleading. Not below 5 — nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

Actionability

Although instruction-only (no code, which is appropriate here), the guidance is fully specific: exact file paths ("本目录下的 sample.pptx", "plan-deck-template 目录下的 template.pptx"), document IDs with versions, and an enumerated list of fields that must never be copied (称呼、日期、人数、目的地、价格、报价编号、付款金额与日期、交通时长、酒店、门票和来源). This matches the top anchor for instruction skills — concrete and unambiguous.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple, single-purpose reference skill and its single action is unambiguous: study the sample's writing and layout only, copy nothing client-specific, and build new decks from template.pptx instead. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so no validation checkpoints are required, and the simple-skill provision applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The structure itself is ideal — a short overview clearly signaling a single one-level-deep reference ("本目录下的 sample.pptx") — but the referenced core file is absent from the bundle as reviewed (the directory contains only SKILL.md, config.json, and rubrics). Since navigation to the skill's sole content artifact fails, this is more than a minor organization gap, placing it at 3 rather than 4; it is not lower because the reference is clearly signaled and correctly scoped.

Specificity

The description names its domain concretely ("一份往期已交付、已脱敏的方案 PPT，留作参考，看合格的方案写成什么样") and states one clear function (serve as a reference exemplar) plus a data-handling constraint ("不得搬进别的客人的方案"). It stays at 3 rather than 4 because it lists only this single purpose with no broader set of concrete actions, and above 2 because it is far more informative than a bare domain label like "Processes PDF files".

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (a delivered, de-identified sample proposal PPT kept as a reference), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — only the weakly implied "留作参考". Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present — "方案 PPT", "范例", "参考", "合格" — which a user asking to see a past proposal example would plausibly say. It sits at 3 rather than 4 because common variations and synonyms are missing (e.g. 样例, 案例, 往期方案, 参考案例) and there is no explicit trigger phrasing to anchor discovery.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unique document ID (HL-MKT-SMP-01) and the sample-vs-template framing give it a niche, but the description never distinguishes it from closely related sibling skills in the same proposal-PPT family (the template, spec, and guide it references in the body). A user mentioning "方案 PPT" could reasonably match several of these, so overlap risk is more than minor — 3 rather than 4.