Conciseness

The body is dense and operational, focusing on system-specific facts Claude cannot know (identifier generation rules, the injected Sender block format, script semantics) rather than general concepts. Minor over-explanation exists — the peer derivation rules ("trim → 移除 ASCII 控制字符", NFKC caveats) run long, and the version-dated note "OpenClaw 2026.10.4 不读取 HEARTBEAT.md" is time-sensitive information not placed in a deprecated/old-patterns section. It is not a 5 because of these trimming opportunities, and not a 3 because nothing explained is generic knowledge.

Actionability

Every operation has a complete, copy-paste-ready bash command with explicit placeholders tied to injected values (e.g. cs-update.sh with --peer/--purpose/--prompt-source, follow-up-create.sh with all five arguments), and the guidance covers semantics ("参数均为可选…脚本会自动忽略空值，不覆盖已有记录"), output format (tab-separated fields), and edge cases ("没有到期任务时输出 NO_DUE_TASKS 并正常退出"). This matches anchor 5: fully executable commands covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Sequences are explicit and ordered — "先调用 cs-update.sh 更新…再在下一个 turn 输出对客户的回复" and the two-step "第一步：取消…第二步：创建新任务" — with a documented status flow (pending → sent_once → completed) and error-handling rules ("脚本报错时按失败处理，不能当作无任务"). It is not a 5 because the database workflows lack a post-write verification step (e.g. confirming the record was updated or the task created), which the rubric flags as important for database operations.

Progressive Disclosure

All seven scripts referenced in the body (cs-update.sh, follow-up-create/cancel-pending/expire/due/mark-sent/complete.sh) exist in the bundle's scripts/ directory, and the one external pointer (proactive-send SKILL.md「定时扫描到期跟进」) is clearly signaled and one level deep. Sections are well-organized with a sensible overview-to-detail progression. It is not a 5 because the script paths use the deployment prefix ./skills/customer-db/scripts/ rather than bundle-relative paths, and the field-dictionary section (二、字段含义) is reference material inlined in the main file.

Specificity

"Maintain a persistent SQLite customer database" names the domain and one concrete action, but the rest of the description explains identifier sourcing ("The system hook injects peer (DB primary key)") rather than listing capabilities like updating records, creating follow-ups, or querying due tasks. It matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than anchor 4, which requires several specific actions.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (maintain a persistent SQLite customer database in the sales-cs workspace), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3. It is not a 4 because the "when" is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ("SQLite", "customer database") but are mixed with system-specific jargon ("peer", "user_id_external", "Awada routing ID") that no user would naturally say, and common variations like follow-up, customer status, or 客户跟进 are absent. This is anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is scoped to the "sales-cs workspace" and uses system-specific identifiers (peer, user_id_external, Awada), giving it a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against unrelated skills. It is not a 5 because it lacks distinct trigger phrases, leaving minor overlap risk with other customer/sales-related skills.