Conciseness

The body is dense and operational throughout — decision matrices, thresholds, a sanitization algorithm, and an output template — with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It is not a 5 because minor prose could be trimmed: the 概述 restates the frontmatter description, and the cross-platform blockquote and some alignment notes (e.g., 与 size-difficulty-standard.md 维度名称一致) are borderline over-explanation.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable for an instruction-only skill: the exact MCP call (tapd_id_get with workspace_id/id/type parameters), a precise split/merge decision matrix with thresholds, a step-by-step filename-sanitization algorithm with worked naming examples (8–20 char filenames, illegal-char replacement, 50-char directory truncation), and a copy-paste-ready markdown output template covering the common cases. Per the code-vs-instruction scoring note, the absence of code is not penalized since the guidance is this concrete.

Workflow Clarity

Five steps are clearly sequenced (assess split need → get long ID → execute split → validation gate → output result) with explicit validation checkpoints (traceability coverage ≥95% with no ❌ elements, 6/6 binary consistency checks) and a bounded error-recovery feedback loop (§4.3: patch → full re-split → hand to user, retry budget of 2). This matches the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation and feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that cleanly delegates deep methodology to one-level-deep, clearly signaled references (../references/requirement-splitting-guide.md, ../references/requirement-doc-template.md), each cited with precise section pins (§5, §6, §7.1–§7.4) and summarized in a reference table stating purpose and when-to-read. No bundle files are present in the review copy, so this is scored on the reference signaling, which matches the well-signaled one-level-deep anchor.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "对大需求进行拆分", "输出各子需求的规范需求文档", "严格控制子需求的内容规模", "保障研发交付内容可控、易于测试验证" — which matches the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It is not a 5 because it omits other capabilities the skill performs (traceability-matrix validation, consistency checks, sub-requirement file output).

Completeness

Both what and when are explicitly present: the what is the splitting/standardized-doc generation above, and the when is stated as "本技能作为 tapd-story-evaluation 的子技能被调用，不独立触发" — explicit trigger guidance equivalent to a 'Use when' clause. It is not a 5 because the concrete trigger condition (e.g., sub-requirement exceeding 24 person-hours) appears only in the body, not the description.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain keywords are well covered: "TAPD", "需求拆分", "大需求", "子需求", "规范需求文档", "测试验证" — matching the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor. It falls short of 5 because common variations/synonyms (e.g., 需求分解, story, 拆解) are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche — TAPD requirement splitting as a sub-skill explicitly bound to the parent skill tapd-story-evaluation and explicitly marked as not independently triggered — so overlap or wrong-skill triggering risk is minimal.