Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — glossary entries are one to three sentences, the deep/shallow ASCII diagrams are compact, and it defines terms by contrast ('_Avoid_: boundary') rather than padding. It does not fully reach anchor 5 because the Relationships section partially restates the glossary ('Depth 为 callers 产生 Leverage…' repeats definitions of leverage/locality) and the three interface-design questions repeat the deep/shallow discussion.

Actionability

Concrete, usable guidance is present: the deletion test ('想象删除这个 module…'), three specific interface-design questions, the two-adapters rule, and contrasting TypeScript snippets ('function processOrder(order, paymentGateway) {}' vs constructing 'new StripeGateway()'). It stops short of anchor 5 because the code snippets are illustrative fragments rather than complete executable examples, and the application guidance is heuristic rather than copy-paste ready.

Workflow Clarity

There is no multi-step process in the body — it is a vocabulary/reference skill whose core instruction ('凡是在设计或重构代码时，都使用这套语言和原则') is unambiguous, which under the simple-skill note could support a higher score. However, applying the material has no explicit sequence (no 'evaluate a module: identify its interface, apply the deletion test, check adapter count' style checklist), and the promised deepening workflows (DEEPENING.md, DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md) are dangling references, leaving checkpoints implicit. This lands on anchor 3 rather than 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The in-body structure is good (clear section headers, tight glossary), but the rubric directs scoring against the actual bundle: the 'Going deeper' section points to [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md) and [DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md](DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md), and no such files exist anywhere in the skill directory — there is no references/, scripts/, or assets/ at all. Navigation to the deeper material fails entirely, which is worse than the 'references present but not clearly signaled' state of anchor 3 and lands noticeably below the midpoint between anchors 2 and 3.

Specificity

The description names its domain clearly ("用于设计深模块的共享词汇" — a shared vocabulary for designing deep modules) and enumerates concrete contexts ("设计或改进模块接口", "决定 seam 放在哪里", "让代码更容易测试"), but the skill's actual action is singular — providing vocabulary — so capability coverage reads as domain-plus-uses rather than a list of several concrete actions. It sits above anchor 2 (generic actions) because the use contexts are specific, but below anchor 4 because it does not list multiple distinct operations the skill performs.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is stated up front ("用于设计深模块的共享词汇") and the 'when' is an explicit 适用于…时 clause listing five concrete triggers including a cross-skill trigger ("其他技能需要深模块词汇时"). This matches anchor 5 (clear what AND when with concrete trigger phrases) and exceeds anchor 4, whose 'when' is merely adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases are natural and varied: "模块接口" (module interface), "seam", "更容易测试" (easier to test), "AI 导航" (AI navigation), and "深化机会" (deepening opportunities) — phrases a user designing code would plausibly say. It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms like 重构 (refactor), 封装 (encapsulation), or API 设计 are absent, but it clearly exceeds anchor 3's 'some relevant keywords, missing variations'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is distinct — 'deep modules', 'seam placement', and 'deepening' are specialized Ousterhout/Feathers-style design vocabulary unlikely to collide with generic skills, and the explicit cross-skill trigger clarifies its role. It does not reach anchor 5 because "设计或改进模块接口" overlaps moderately with general API-design or refactoring skills.