Conciseness

The body is lean and command-driven, but has minor trimmable redundancy: the Step 1 day-mapping table repeats the mapping already embedded in the AskQuestion options ("1 周（对应 7 天）"), and the 脚本说明 table re-lists script paths already given in Step 2. This fits 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'; not score 5 because of that duplication, not score 3 because there are no conceptual explanations of things Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete executable commands with argument placeholders are given per OS ("powershell -File .../cleanup-worktree.ps1 -Days <天数>", "bash .../cleanup-worktree.sh -d <天数>"), AskQuestion prompts and options are spelled out, and batch rules (skip-closed, skip-uncommitted, continue-on-failure) are specific. Not score 5 because the paths assume a fixed install location (.cursor/skills/...) that does not match the actual bundle layout, and per-branch execution depends on an external skill's Steps 1-5 without restating any of its commands.

Workflow Clarity

A destructive batch workflow with real checkpoints: a pre-flight master-branch check, a non-destructive preview step, an explicit AskQuestion confirmation gate before deletion, per-branch error isolation ("单个分支处理失败不中断整批"), and a per-branch summary report. This satisfies the batch/destructive validation cap. Not score 5 because post-execution verification is entirely delegated to the external close-github-worktree-done skill and the final table is a presentation of assumed results rather than a stated validation step.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is appropriate: orchestration lives in SKILL.md while the filtering logic is externalized to two real scripts (both present in ./scripts/ and clearly inventoried in a table), with the output contract (branch names, one per line) documented so the interface is unambiguous. Not score 5 because the referenced paths (.cursor/skills/cleanup-github-worktree/scripts/...) do not match the actual bundle location, and the script-internals section (脚本职责) partially duplicates logic detail that belongs in the scripts themselves.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("清理长时间未使用的 git worktree") with one action verb (cleanup) but omits the concrete operations the skill actually performs (close GitHub Issue, remove worktree, delete local branch). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; not score 4 because several specific actions from the body are missing, not score 2 because the domain and action are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the 'what' ("清理长时间未使用的 git worktree（GitHub 版）") and an explicit 'when' ("仅在用户明确要求清理 worktree 时使用，不自动触发"). Not score 5 because the 'what' is thin relative to the body's actual scope (issue closing, branch deletion, summary reporting); not score 3 because the trigger guidance is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

The keyword list "清理 worktree、删除 worktree、移除旧分支、worktree 回收" gives good natural-phrase coverage with four phrasings a user would plausibly say. Not score 5 because common variations (e.g., mixed-language phrasings like "git worktree 清理", "worktree 列表") are absent; not score 3 because multiple synonyms are present rather than only some relevant keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is narrow (long-unused git worktree cleanup, GitHub-flavored) with an explicit manual-only trigger, so it is mostly distinct. Not score 5 because the "（GitHub 版）" marker and generic keywords ("清理 worktree", "移除旧分支") leave minor overlap risk with sibling worktree-cleanup skills; not score 3 because the trigger conditions are explicit and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.