Conciseness

The ~70-line body is lean with no filler and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows: it jumps straight to policy ('按需懒创建文件' lazy file creation, the ADR three-part gate, 'GLOSSARY.md 必须完全不包含 implementation details'). This matches anchor 5 ('every token earns its place'); it is not 4 because no section contains over-explanation that could be trimmed without losing actionable content.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete throughout — near copy-paste challenge lines ('Your glossary defines \'cancellation\' as X, but you seem to mean Y - which is it?'), a 3-item ADR checklist, exact file paths (GLOSSARY.md, docs/adr/, GLOSSARY-MAP.md) and lazy-creation rules — matching anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'). It is not 5 because the steps '使用 GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md 中的格式' and '使用 ADR-FORMAT.md 中的格式' point to files that do not exist in the bundle, so they cannot be executed as written; not 3 because everything else is specific and executable rather than pseudocode-level.

Workflow Clarity

Session behaviors are organized by trigger with unambiguous actions, and there are explicit checkpoints: the ADR section gates on a concrete three-part test (Hard to reverse / Surprising without context / real trade-off) and '与代码交叉对照' acts as a validation behavior — matching anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present'). It is not 5 because the glossary-update flow states the purity rule but has no explicit verify/check-back step, and there is no error-recovery guidance (e.g., what to do when a term stays contested); not 3 because checkpoints like the ADR gate are explicit rather than missing or implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is well structured and the two references are clearly signaled one level deep at point of use ('使用 [GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md](./GLOSSARY-FORMAT.md) 中的格式', '使用 [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md) 中的格式'), but neither referenced file exists in the bundle — there is no references/ (or any) directory alongside SKILL.md, so both links dead-end. Scored against the actual bundle structure, this matches anchor 3: organization is present but navigation fails. It is not 4 because unresolvable referenced paths are more than a 'minor organization gap'; not 2 because the inline content is well organized and nothing bloated is inlined.

Specificity

The lead capability '构建并打磨项目的领域模型' is abstract, but the description lists several concrete actions — '讨论 codebase 术语、编写或编辑 GLOSSARY.md，或记录或编辑 ADR' (discuss codebase terminology, write/edit GLOSSARY.md, record/edit ADRs) — matching anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'). It is not 5 because the headline verb pair is generic and the skill's core behaviors (challenging terms, cross-checking code) are unstated; not 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are explicitly named.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: what = '构建并打磨项目的领域模型'; when = '适用于讨论 codebase 术语、编写或编辑 GLOSSARY.md，或记录或编辑 ADR' — an explicit 'Use when'-equivalent clause with concrete trigger phrases, so the anchor-3 cap for missing trigger guidance does not apply. It is not 5 because the 'what' clause is abstract (no concrete actions or artifacts in the capability statement itself); it is clearly above anchor 3 because the 'when' is explicit rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms include '领域模型' (domain model), 'codebase 术语' (codebase terminology), and the artifact names 'GLOSSARY.md' and 'ADR' — good keyword coverage with concrete file-level triggers, matching anchor 4. It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms users might say — 'ubiquitous language', 'glossary', 'naming', 'architecture decision record' (the ADR acronym is never expanded) — are missing; it is above anchor 3 because coverage extends well beyond a couple of generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Artifact-specific triggers (GLOSSARY.md, ADR, codebase terminology) carve out a recognizable domain-modeling niche, matching anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'). It is not 5 because '讨论 codebase 术语' and decision-record wording could still overlap with documentation or architecture-design skills; not 3 because the triggers are far more specific than generic phrasing like 'Works with document files'.