Conciseness

The body is lean and almost every token is protocol-specific knowledge Claude cannot infer (MinIO mirror paths, .processing marker semantics, coding-request/coding-result message formats). Minor trimmable redundancy keeps it below anchor 5: the opening 5-item list ("1. Understand the task deeply ... 5. Review the result") restates the section headers that follow, and "Understand the task deeply" is non-actionable filler.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste-ready bash for workspace setup and mc mirror sync (both directions), a syntactically valid .processing marker check, exact message templates for coding-request/coding-result/coding-failed and both completion reports, and a concrete good-prompt example plus named weak-prompt anti-examples. The common cases (success, failure, multi-round follow-up) are all covered with specific commands.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (prepare workspace → push to MinIO → check .processing marker → generate prompt → send coding-request → handle 6a/6b) is clearly numbered with explicit validation checkpoints: sync-before-write (step 2b prevents clobbering in-flight work), review via git diff and running tests before reporting completed. Feedback loops for error recovery are present — the coding-failed manual-fallback branch and the Multiple Rounds retry-with-sync section.

Progressive Disclosure

A single, well-sectioned file with clear headers and no nested or buried references, so navigation is easy; no bundle files exist to misplace. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because at ~170 lines the prompt-crafting material (the full good-prompt example, weak-prompt signs, and Tips for Better Prompts) is a self-contained sub-topic that could live in a one-level-deep reference file, keeping SKILL.md a tighter operational overview.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("编码工作"/coding work) and one concrete action ("委托给 Manager 持有的 AI CLI 工具...执行" — delegate to Manager-held CLI tools for execution) with specific tool names (Claude Code / Gemini CLI / qodercli), but enumerates only this single composite action. It matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than 4, which requires several distinct listed actions.

Completeness

The description gives a clear "what" (delegate coding work to the Manager's CLI tools) but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance; the when-guidance lives in a separate frontmatter assign_when field rather than in the description. Per the rubric, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3 — it has a clear what with the when absent from the description itself, not the vague-what-plus-no-when of anchor 2.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("编码", "委托", and the tool names Claude Code / Gemini CLI / qodercli), but common natural variations a user would say — 写代码, 修改代码, 修 bug, 重构, or English equivalents — are missing from the description field (they appear only in the separate assign_when field). This fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) better than 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The delegation-to-Manager's-CLI-tool framing with three named tools is a clear niche that is mostly distinct from ordinary coding skills. It is not anchor 5 because the description itself doesn't state the distinguishing trigger (the "## Coding CLI Mode" in spec.md condition, which only appears in assign_when), leaving minor overlap risk with generic coding-assistance skills.