Conciseness

The entire body is three lines: a purpose statement ("本技能只用于兼容旧名称，不直接处理业务" — this skill only exists for backward compatibility, it does not handle business directly) and a single delegation instruction. Nothing is padded and no concept Claude already knows is explained, matching 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place'.

Actionability

The single instruction is concrete and executable — "MUST 完整读取 ../lark-meeting/SKILL.md，并按照其中的路由和行动指南执行" (MUST fully read ../lark-meeting/SKILL.md and follow its routing and action guidance) — with an explicit path and unambiguous directive. It is below 5 because all operational detail lives in an external file outside this skill's own bundle, so the skill itself carries a minor gap: it cannot stand alone if the target is unavailable, and no fallback is stated.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-task skill and the single action is unambiguous: read the lark-meeting SKILL.md in full and execute its routing and action guidance. Per the simple-skill guideline this scores 5; the routing step is not destructive or batch, so no validation checkpoint is required.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear, well-organized overview with a heading, a scope statement, and one clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ([../lark-meeting/SKILL.md](../lark-meeting/SKILL.md)). It falls short of 5 only because the reference points outside the skill's own bundle to a sibling directory rather than a bundled reference file, a slightly non-standard organization for discovery.

Specificity

The description names its domain (a compatibility alias) and one concrete action — "相关请求统一交由 lark-meeting 技能处理" (related requests are handed to the lark-meeting skill) — which matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It is above score 2 because the delegation action is explicit rather than generic, but below 4 because "相关请求" (related requests) leaves the scope of what is delegated unstated and no other capability is enumerated.

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: 'what' — requests are routed to the lark-meeting skill — and 'when' — "仅当用户或上游配置显式指定 lark-note 时使用" (use only when the user or upstream configuration explicitly specifies lark-note). It falls short of 5 because the 'what' clause refers only vaguely to "相关请求" rather than stating concretely what kinds of requests are in scope.

Trigger Term Quality

It contains the natural trigger terms "lark-note" and "lark-meeting", which a user naming this skill would say, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. It is not 4 because there are no synonyms, alternate phrasings, or file-type terms that would catch variations of the request.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche — firing only on an explicit "lark-note" mention and delegating to one named skill — with minimal overlap risk against other skills. This matches 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'; the gating clause makes accidental triggering for the wrong skill very unlikely.