Conciseness

The body is lean: a compact event model, a 7-row type table, the ask_env call signature, five short examples, and four constraints — no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows. It falls short of 5 only because the same-type rule is stated twice (in the start_event section — "如果当前事件的 event_type 已经等于你当前要执行的类型..." — and again as constraint 3), and the anti-parameter list ("不使用 duration_min、duration_minutes...") plus the seconds conversion table add mild redundancy that could be tightened.

Actionability

Every operation comes with a copy-paste-ready ask_env call: the exact call signature with ctx ("ask_env(instruction=..., ctx={"id": <your_id>})"), worked examples for query, start, keep-current, stop, and switch, the required status values ('completed'/'cancelled'), and a seconds conversion table (30min=1800 ... 8h=28800). The examples cover all common cases and are fully executable as written.

Workflow Clarity

For this simple single-purpose skill the decision procedure is unambiguous and includes an explicit pre-check: query the current event before starting ("启动前需先查询当前事件"), keep the current event if it's already the same type, stop before switching to a different type, and don't re-slice long-running events per step. The '切换事件' example shows the full stop-then-start sequence, and the constraints section acts as a checklist for edge cases — matching the simple-skill exception for a score of 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill has no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and at this size none are needed — every section (concepts, tools, examples, constraints) earns its place inline under clear, scannable headers with a table for the event types. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, a short, single-purpose skill with well-organized sections and no nested or buried references scores 5.

Specificity

The description names three concrete actions — "为 agent 启动、查询和停止行为事件" (start, query, and stop behavioral events for agents) — which is several specific actions with only minor coverage gaps (e.g., no mention of event types or duration semantics). It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (no mention of what an event contains or the single-event constraint) and not 3 because it goes beyond naming just 1-2 actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (start, query, and stop behavioral events via ask_env/EventSpace), but there is no 'when' clause — no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger guidance about when this skill should activate, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 2 because the 'what' is concrete and complete for the domain, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist — "事件管理" (event management), "行为事件" (behavioral events), "EventSpace", "ask_env" — but these are mostly internal tool names and domain jargon rather than natural phrases a user would say when needing this skill. It is above anchor 2 (more than one or two generic keywords, all domain-relevant) but below anchor 4 (no common natural-language variations or synonyms like 'schedule activity', 'current activity', 'event status').

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The terms "EventSpace", "行为事件" (behavioral events), and "ask_env" carve out a clear niche that is unlikely to collide with unrelated skills. It is not 5 because "事件管理" (event management) alone is a somewhat generic phrase that could overlap with calendar/scheduling-type skills absent the EventSpace qualifier.