Conciseness

Every sentence carries an executable directive ('用短句、明确主语、具体动词', '实验结论保留版本、条件、指标和适用范围'); there is no padding, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and nothing to trim — matching anchor 5's lean/every-token-earns-its-place standard, above anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

Actionability

Directives are concrete and checkable ('真正的数学公式使用块级数学语法', '先读最新内容与评论、高亮等人工标记，再做局部修改并读回'), but a style skill with no before/after example leaves some rules as judgment calls ('必要的技术密度', '结构健康时再做局部融入'), fitting anchor 4's minor-gaps level rather than anchor 5's specific examples covering common cases.

Workflow Clarity

A clear arc is present — prepare ('先确认读者、用途和落点') → writing/editing rules → final verification checklist ('完成时检查：读者能否理解核心判断…') — with an explicit read-back checkpoint for collaborative edits; but there is no error-recovery step when a checklist item fails, so it matches anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's explicit feedback loops. Validation for edit operations is present (read-back + checklist), so no destructive-operation cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The 25-line body is self-contained and appropriately scoped for its size, and its single external pointer ([managed-lark-docs](../managed-lark-docs/SKILL.md)) is clearly signaled and one level deep — but that path does not resolve in this bundle (no sibling skill or references/ directory exists), a minor organization gap that keeps it at anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's clean fully-verifiable structure.

Specificity

Names the domain ('Chinese technical notes and articles') and exactly two concrete actions ('Write or refine'), matching the 1-2-concrete-actions anchor; it does not list several specific actions (no restructuring, collaborative-doc editing, etc.), so it sits below anchor 4 and clearly above anchor 2's minimal/generic actions.

Completeness

'Write or refine Chinese technical notes and articles in a concise, evidence-led voice' explicitly answers the what, and 'Use for substantive drafting or rewriting, not every Chinese reply' is an explicit when-clause with concrete trigger phrases plus a negative guard — matching anchor 5's standard of both answered with concrete triggers; anchor 4's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'Chinese technical notes and articles', 'drafting or rewriting', 'refine', 'Chinese reply'. It misses common variations a user might say (e.g., 'edit/polish', 'blog posts', '中文文章'), fitting anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage, and well above anchor 3's single-phrase level.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (Chinese technical writing voice) with distinct triggers; the exclusion 'not every Chinese reply' and the 'substantive' qualifier actively prevent mis-triggering on general Chinese conversation or translation skills — minimal conflict risk per anchor 5, not merely 'mostly distinct' as in anchor 4.