Conciseness

The body is a lean ~30-line router: an ASCII decision tree, a quick-links table, and a three-row code-location table, with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. Every line is either a routing decision, a link, or a concrete file path — matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

The code-location table is concrete ('packages/global/support/permission/constant.ts — 添加 PerResourceTypeEnum', auth.ts paths), but the body contains no executable steps, commands, or code — all actual instruction is delegated to guide files. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details', and critically the delegated guides (./guides/quick-start.md, ./guides/full-integration.md) are not present in the bundle, so as shipped the skill stops at file pointers.

Workflow Clarity

The decision tree cleanly routes the user to one of two paths, which is a clear selection flow, but there is no implementation sequence in the body — no ordered steps, no validation checkpoint (e.g., how to verify the new resource's auth works before finishing), and the checklist link that might supply them points to a missing file. This sits at 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit', and cannot go higher while the actual steps are unreachable.

Progressive Disclosure

The body structure itself is good — a well-signaled overview with one-level-deep links organized in a quick-links table. However, scoring against the actual bundle structure: none of the four referenced files (./guides/quick-start.md, ./guides/full-integration.md, ./checklist.md, ./reference/README.md) exist in the skill directory, so navigation breaks at the first hop. Good skeleton, broken targets — between the 'good structure' (4) and 'references present but not clearly signaled' (3) anchors, pulled to 3 by the broken links.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("为 FastGPT 新资源接入权限管理") and one concrete action (接入权限管理) with example resources ("如 AgentSkill、Plugin 等"), matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor. It is above a 2 because the scope is concretely bounded to FastGPT new-resource integration, but below a 4 because it never states what the integration actually involves (e.g., adding a resource type enum, writing auth functions).

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: the 'what' ("为 FastGPT 新资源接入权限管理") and the 'when' ("当用户需要为新资源…添加权限支持时触发"), with concrete example resources. It does not reach 5 because the 'what' stays high-level — it says permission management is integrated but not which concrete actions that covers.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural phrases a user would say — "添加权限支持", "权限", "FastGPT", "AgentSkill", "Plugin" — plus an explicit trigger sentence ("当用户需要为新资源…添加权限支持时触发"), giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of 5 because common synonyms like "访问控制", "授权", or "ACL" are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The FastGPT-scoped niche with distinct triggers (新资源权限接入, AgentSkill/Plugin permission support) is mostly distinct with minimal conflict risk. It is not a 5 because a request like "add permissions to a plugin" without FastGPT context could plausibly overlap with generic permission/authorization skills.