Conciseness

The body is a dense routing table plus decision rules with essentially no padding or explanation of known concepts. It falls short of 5 because there is noticeable duplication: "审批待办不是飞书任务" is stated twice (routing header and 判定规则), the action list 同意/拒绝/转交/退回/撤回/催办/加签/抄送 is enumerated twice within the same routing section, and "最多重试1次" is repeated between 执行原则 §3 and the 1395001 section.

Actionability

Highly concrete: a 14-row command mapping table, a bash block with real CLI invocations, topic enum codes (1待办 2已办 17未读 18已读), and the exact 1395001 error-code decision tree. It is not 5 because the flagship complex operation — instances create — shows "form":"[...]" in the example, which is a placeholder rather than usable syntax and delegates the hard part entirely to the reference; minor gaps remain for a first-time reader.

Workflow Clarity

Both processing chains are explicitly sequenced (发起审批: search → get → create; 处理审批: query → optional get → operate) with the precondition rule that operations must carry instance_code + task_id as a pair. Error recovery is a genuine feedback loop: the 1395001 decision tree stops blind retries, permits exactly one re-query, and ends with a required user-facing conclusion — matching the 5 anchor's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean overview: a per-command table where every row links a verified reference file, with all 14 linked files present in references/. It is not 5 because two reference files that the body itself calls critical for the create workflow (lark-approval-instance-form-control-parameters.md, lark-approval-instance-value-sourcing.md) are not surfaced anywhere in SKILL.md — they are only discoverable via a second hop through initiate.md, and references cross-link each other, so navigation is two hops deep for the most complex flow.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, comprehensive actions within the Feishu approval domain: "查询和处理审批待办/已办/实例", "搜索可发起审批定义", "查看定义详情", "发起原生审批实例" — matching the anchor of multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage. It is not the level below (4) because there are no meaningful coverage gaps in the domain's core verbs; every major capability (query, process, search, view, create) is named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: 'what' via the concrete action list, and 'when' via the explicit trigger clause "当用户要处理审批任务、查看审批实例、搜索或发起审批时使用", plus explicit boundary statements ("不负责创建审批定义；三方审批定义不走原生提单"). This mirrors the 5-anchor example with concrete trigger phrases; the 'when' clause is explicit, not merely present as at level 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage of natural user phrasings: "审批待办", "审批实例", "搜索或发起审批", "处理审批任务". It is not 5 because common natural verbs users say in this workflow — 同意/拒绝 (approve/reject), 转交, 催办, 请假/报销 approval nouns — are folded under generic "处理" rather than appearing as explicit trigger terms; it is above 3 because the terms present are exactly what users would naturally say, not jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It has a clear niche (Feishu approval instances) and actively de-conflicts against the nearest competing skill: "审批待办不是飞书任务；非审批类待办走 lark-task" — routing instructions that prevent wrong-skill triggering. Minimal conflict risk with any other skill, matching the 5 anchor's 'clear niche with distinct triggers'.