Conciseness

The body explains nothing Claude already knows — every line is environment-specific protocol with no padding — but equivalent caveats are restated across sections ("提议不等于接手" in step 5 vs "Work 提议没有责任承诺" in 恢复与真实状态; "采纳内容不等于工作验收" vs "交结果不等于完成"), and several sentences carry 3-4 conditions in a single clause. Mostly efficient but could be tightened, matching the 3 anchor; not a 2 because nothing is unnecessary filler, not a 4 because the repetition is more than minor.

Actionability

Fully actionable for an instruction-only skill: it names every concrete tool call with parameters — `cat_cafe_collective_current_context`, `cat_cafe_collective_set_interest(contextRef, listen)`, `update_entrusted_work` with `taskId`/`expectedRevision`/`artifactRefs`, `resume`/`revision` modes — plus hard constraints (UTF8 Markdown ≤65536 bytes). Per the scoring notes, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this concrete; specific branches cover the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered 6-step sequence with an explicit verification checklist ("公共 A 请求不得看到 B 或私人历史…没有真实接纳回执时不说“我接下了”") and recovery feedback loops (re-read current-context on lost response, re-read refs on new revision). Not a 5 because the artifact-publication sub-flow (generate_document → post_message → update_entrusted_work → reply) is embedded in one dense prose paragraph rather than numbered steps like the main flow.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the body is organized into clear, navigable sections (要不要管 / 能不能说 / 已准入的 Work / 恢复与真实状态 / 验证). It just misses the under-50-line simple-skill exception at ~59 lines, and detail-heavy sections (恢复与真实状态, the artifact flow) could arguably live in reference files — good structure with minor organization gaps, matching the 4 anchor.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "判断这句话是哪件事和能不能接", "已接纳的 Work 需原处回流", and outputs "获准上下文、对事项的判断、具名原处回复与真实回执" — matching the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor. Not a 5 because it does not enumerate the underlying capabilities comprehensively; not a 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are explicitly stated.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: "Use when: Collective 请求参与、要判断这句话是哪件事和能不能接，或已接纳的 Work 需原处回流" (when), "Output: 获准上下文、对事项的判断、具名原处回复与真实回执" (what), and adds a "Not for" boundary clause. Clear match to the top anchor; not below since neither what nor when is missing or vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Good coverage of the domain's natural phrases: "Collective 请求参与", "Channel 参与", "回到原来源", "能不能接", plus frontmatter triggers. It falls below the 5 anchor because a few natural variations/synonyms a requester might phrase differently are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (Collective/Host participation protocol) with distinct trigger vocabulary and explicit exclusions ("Not for: 私人检索、任意投递、owner 授权，或自己把一句请求宣布成已接下的工作"), giving minimal conflict risk with other skills. Matches the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.