Conciseness

Largely lean — compact severity tables, command lists, and pattern pairs with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but recurring flavor commentary ("安全即道基，破则劫败", "🔴 危险 - 触犯道基", "✅ 安全替代 - 道基稳固") adds no operational value and could be trimmed, matching anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: four copy-paste-ready invocations of the real script "node scripts/security_scanner.js <扫描路径>" with flags (-v, --json, --exclude), concrete dangerous-vs-safe code pairs for Python/JavaScript/Go, and a ready-to-fill report template — matches anchor 5's copy-paste-ready coverage of common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The 校验流程 section gives a clear 5-step sequence with an explicit gate ("Critical/High 问题必须修复后才能交付"), matching anchor 4. It falls short of anchor 5 because the fix → re-scan → re-verify feedback loop is only implicit for this batch scanning workflow; validation checkpoints are present, so it is above anchor 3.

Progressive Disclosure

A well-sectioned overview that delegates scanner logic to a single one-level-deep bundle file (scripts/security_scanner.js), clearly signaled with usage examples and verified to exist. The inline pattern tables are compact and appropriately placed, and navigation via clear section headers is easy — matches anchor 5.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "自动扫描代码安全漏洞" (auto-scan for security vulnerabilities), "检测危险模式" (detect dangerous patterns), "确保安全决策有文档记录" (ensure security decisions are documented). It falls short of anchor 5 because "检测危险模式" restates the scanning action rather than adding distinct coverage, but exceeds anchor 3 with three clearly stated capabilities.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ("自动扫描代码安全漏洞，检测危险模式，确保安全决策有文档记录") and when, with a concrete trigger clause "当用户提到安全扫描、漏洞检测、安全审计…时使用" plus "在新建模块、安全相关变更、攻防任务、重构完成时自动触发". This matches anchor 5's 'both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'; anchor 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "安全扫描", "漏洞检测", "安全审计", "代码安全", "OWASP", "注入检测", "敏感信息泄露", plus auto-trigger scenarios. Missing common variations like 渗透测试/SAST/代码审查 and any file extensions, so it does not reach anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage; it clearly exceeds anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear security-audit niche with distinct triggers (OWASP, injection detection, sensitive-data leakage) keeps it mostly distinct, but "代码安全" is broad and auto-triggers like "重构完成" (refactoring complete) create minor overlap risk with generic code-review/quality skills — anchor 4, not 5.