Conciseness

The ~35-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: 'Paths describe the current implementation, not the only valid edit locations. Confirm them in the working branch.' Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, and every sentence carries routing, scope, or safety information. Matches the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

The routing table gives concrete, executable direction — task categories mapped to real files ('references/rules/order-contracts.md') and named starting owners ('Hyperliquid actions and exchange service'). Not a 5 because some guidance stays at the principle level ('Trace incorrect trading facts to their source', 'Preserve account/instrument identity') with no commands or examples inline, and not a 3 because the navigation instructions are specific and immediately followable.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is unambiguous for a routing skill: 'Start with the matching topic below; add another reference when the investigation crosses that boundary', with validation addressed via per-topic 'validation cases' and 'validation recipes'. Not a 5 because validation checkpoints are delegated to referenced files rather than stated explicitly inline, and not a 3 because the sequence is coherent and validation/verification is clearly signposted, including reporting expectations.

Progressive Disclosure

A clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references: the topic table routes to 7 rule files and the closing paragraph routes to 3 more, and all 10 referenced files exist under references/rules/ with substantive matching content (verified against order-contracts.md). Content is appropriately split — the body holds only routing and boundaries while details live in the references.

Specificity

The description enumerates several concrete surfaces and capabilities ('views/Perp, ServiceHyperLiquid, 永续合约, 订单簿, orderbook, TWAP, scale, Chase, Relay/Unifold deposits, signing, charts or layouts') rather than generic language. It stops short of a 5 because the actions themselves are only 'development/review' — it never states concretely what the skill provides (code/contract lookup guidance).

Completeness

An explicit 'Use for OneKey Perps/Hyperliquid development/review' trigger clause with concrete trigger surfaces answers 'when' clearly, and 'development/review' weakly answers 'what'. Not a 5 because the 'what' — what the skill actually does (locate relevant code and contracts) — is only implied, and not a 3 because the explicit trigger guidance prevents the missing-'Use when' cap and the 'when' half is strong.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage including bilingual synonyms users would actually say ('orderbook'/'订单簿', 'Perps'/'永续合约', 'TWAP', 'deposits', 'signing', 'charts', 'layouts'). It sits above the 4 anchor because synonyms across two languages are covered, matching the 'comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms' anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Excludes generic Swap/Market' draws an explicit boundary against the nearest competing skills, and the niche (OneKey Perps/Hyperliquid surfaces) is tightly scoped. Minimal conflict risk with a clear distinct trigger set.