Conciseness

The body is lean with zero concept explanation: sections are limited to when to use it, three usage steps, a flag table, output format, and copy-paste examples. Every token earns its place and it assumes Claude's competence, matching the 'Lean and efficient' anchor; the only trace of padding ("脚本将返回查找结果") is a single short step, not the 'minor instances' of score 4.

Actionability

The examples are fully executable copy-paste commands whose flags (--id, --title, --keyword, --status, --priority, --archived, --all) match the actual script's argparse interface. It falls short of 5 because 使用步骤 step 2 shows a positional "<query>" argument the script does not accept, and the script's --detail flag is undocumented, leaving minor gaps in covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple, single-purpose read-only lookup with an unambiguous action, which would normally merit 5 under the simple-skill exception. It drops to 4 because the documented step-2 command (positional "<query>") contradicts every example and the actual CLI, a small but real accuracy gap in the stated sequence; no validation checkpoints are required since the operation is non-destructive.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external reference files, and it is organized into clear, well-labeled sections (适用场景, 使用步骤, 匹配方式, 输出格式, 示例). Its single bundle path, scripts/todo_finder.py, is real and referenced accurately, satisfying the guideline that short simple skills can score 5 with well-organized sections.

Specificity

The description states a concrete action ("查找 todo") and names its data sources ("todos.json 和归档"), but "以多种匹配方式" (multiple matching methods) is generic without naming any of the actual match dimensions (ID, title, keyword, status, priority, assignee). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; it is above score 2 because real actions and sources are named, and below 4 because no specific match types are listed.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (find todos from todos.json and archives via multiple match methods), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 3. It is not score 2 because the 'what' is concrete, and not 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely weak.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes the natural keyword "todo" and the specific file "todos.json" plus "归档" (archive), which are terms a user would say. However, common variations are missing — no "搜索/查找" phrasing variants, no "task/任务" synonym, no mention of the archive path — matching the anchor 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than score 4's 'Good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"从 todos.json 和归档中查找 todo" carves out a clear niche (searching a specific todo store and its archive) with distinct triggers like "todos.json". There is minor overlap risk with todo-management skills (create/update/track todos), which keeps it below score 5, but the search-only scope and named file make it mostly distinct from those.