Conciseness

The body is lean — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, every step is direct ('Copy it to the target location', 'Make it executable with chmod +x'). It fits anchor 4 ('minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed') rather than 5 because the project and global settings JSON blocks are ~35 near-duplicate lines differing only in the command path; that block could be collapsed to one snippet plus a path substitution. It is well above anchor 3 since there is no real padding.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact script path and destination paths, 'chmod +x', complete copy-paste settings JSON for both scopes, an explicit merge instruction ('merge the hook into existing hooks.PreToolUse array — don't overwrite other settings'), and a concrete verification one-liner with expected behavior ('Should exit with code 2 and print a BLOCKED message to stderr'). Matches the anchor-5 'copy-paste ready commands covering the common cases'; not 4 because no key detail is missing.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps (ask scope → copy script → add hook → customize → verify) ending in an explicit validation step with a test command and expected exit code, so it avoids the destructive-operation cap at 3. It matches anchor 4 ('Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than 5 because there is no error-recovery guidance if the verification fails (e.g., check executable bit, confirm settings merge) — the feedback loop is single-shot rather than validate → fix → retry.

Progressive Disclosure

The implementation script is correctly externalized with a clear one-level-deep reference ('The bundled script is at: [scripts/block-dangerous-git.sh](scripts/block-dangerous-git.sh)' — the file exists and matches the body), and everything remaining inline is appropriately concise setup guidance. This is a single-task skill whose only split-worthy content (the pattern-matching script) is already in a separate file, matching the well-signaled one-level-deep anchor; not 4 because there are no organization gaps — sections (What Gets Blocked / Steps) are well-ordered and easy to navigate.

Specificity

Quotes: 'Set up Claude Code hooks to block dangerous git commands (push, reset --hard, clean, branch -D, etc.) before they execute' — names the domain and several concrete actions (block push, reset --hard, clean, branch -D). It matches the anchor 'Lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' rather than 5 because 'etc.' leaves coverage slightly open (checkout/restore variants, force-push specifics are only partially enumerated), and it is above 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are explicitly listed.

Completeness

Quotes: 'Set up Claude Code hooks to block dangerous git commands... before they execute. Use when user wants to prevent destructive git operations, add git safety hooks, or block git push/reset in Claude Code.' Both 'what' and an explicit 'when' with concrete trigger phrases are present, matching the anchor-5 example pattern exactly; it is not 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and multi-trigger rather than merely adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: 'prevent destructive git operations', 'add git safety hooks', 'block git push/reset in Claude Code' — good coverage of natural phrases a user would say. It fits anchor 4 ('Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than 5 because common synonyms like 'force push', 'protect', or 'safety rails' are absent, and it clearly exceeds anchor 3 since multiple natural user phrasings are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: 'Claude Code hooks', 'block dangerous git commands', 'git push/reset in Claude Code' — a clear niche (git safety hooks in Claude Code) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills. It is not 4 because the combination of hook installation + specific blocked git commands is unlikely to fire for a wrong skill.