Conciseness

The body is two sentences plus a heading with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows: "本技能只用于兼容旧名称，不直接处理业务。" and "MUST 完整读取 ../lark-meeting/SKILL.md…并按照其中的路由和行动指南执行。" Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence'). There is nothing that could anchor at 4, as there are no instances of over-explanation at all.

Actionability

The guidance is concrete in form — a MUST directive with a specific relative path to read and follow — but the referenced target ../lark-meeting/SKILL.md does not exist anywhere in the bundle or workspace, so the single instruction cannot actually be executed from this skill's location. This matches anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete… missing key details'); not score 4 because a dangling path is more than a minor gap, and not score 2 because the direction itself is specific and unambiguous rather than a high-level hint.

Workflow Clarity

As a single-purpose skill the sole action (read lark-meeting's SKILL.md fully, then execute per its routing and action guidance) is unambiguous and clearly sequenced via the MUST marker, which under the simple-skill rule supports a high score. However the single step depends entirely on a file that is not present, and there is no fallback (e.g. what to do if lark-meeting is missing). This sits between anchor 5 (unambiguous single action) and anchor 4 (clear sequence, minor gaps) — the missing fallback for the unresolvable dependency keeps it at 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is appropriately minimal and its one reference (a sibling SKILL.md, one level deep, rendered as a clear markdown link) is well signaled — but per the guideline to score against the actual bundle structure, no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist and the referenced path ../lark-meeting/SKILL.md does not resolve to any real file. Structure is present but the single reference is effectively broken, matching anchor 3 ('some structure… references present but not clearly [resolvable]'); it is not 2 because nothing is improperly inlined, and not 4 because the one reference the skill relies on cannot be verified to exist.

Specificity

The description names its domain (lark-vc compatibility routing) and one concrete action — "相关请求统一交由 lark-meeting 技能处理" (delegates related requests to the lark-meeting skill) — but offers only this single action with no broader coverage of what the skill handles. It clearly matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions'); it is not score 2 because delegation to a named skill is a concrete, specific action rather than a generic verb, and not score 4 because there is only one action stated, not several.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: what it does — "相关请求统一交由 lark-meeting 技能处理" (routes related requests to the lark-meeting skill) — and when to use it — "仅当用户或上游配置显式指定 lark-vc 时使用" (only when lark-vc is explicitly specified by the user or upstream config), a concrete trigger phrase. This matches anchor 5 ('clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'); score 4 would apply if the 'when' were only implicit or less specific, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

The single trigger term "lark-vc" is present and tied to an explicit condition ("仅当用户或上游配置显式指定 lark-vc 时使用" — only when the user or upstream config explicitly specifies lark-vc), giving one relevant keyword. This matches anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'): only the exact name lark-vc is covered, with no natural variations (e.g. meeting/video-conference terms users might actually say). Not score 4 because coverage is just one term, and not score 2 because that term is directly relevant and correctly conditioned.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger is exclusive by construction ("仅当…显式指定 lark-vc 时使用" — use ONLY when lark-vc is explicitly named), which creates a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against other skills, including the lark-meeting skill it delegates to. This matches anchor 5; score 4 would apply if there were minor overlap risk, but the 'only when explicitly specified' condition forecloses incidental triggering.