Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative throughout ("用 chmod +x 让它可执行", "添加到对应 settings file") with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The single behavioral note ("被阻止时，Claude 会看到一条 message...") conveys functional information, so it does not fit the 'some unnecessary explanation' anchor 3.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact copy destinations per scope, chmod command, copy-paste-ready JSON hook configs for both project and global settings, a merge instruction, and a concrete verification command with the expected exit code ("应以 code 2 退出，并向 stderr 打印 BLOCKED message"). This matches the copy-paste-ready anchor 5 and exceeds anchor 4's 'minor gaps'.

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence with an explicit verification checkpoint (step 5: pipe a test command into the script and check for exit code 2 plus a stderr BLOCKED message). It is not 5 because there is no error-recovery guidance if verification fails (no fix-and-retry loop); it is above anchor 3 because validation is present and explicit, and the destructive-operation cap does not apply since this workflow installs (not performs) destructive operations.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-sectioned overview that keeps the blocking logic in the bundled script, referenced by a clear one-level-deep relative link ([scripts/block-dangerous-git.sh](scripts/block-dangerous-git.sh)) that resolves to a real file. Nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined, fitting the simple-skill exception for a well-organized single-purpose skill.

Specificity

Names the concrete capability ("设置 Claude Code hooks...阻止它们") and enumerates specific blocked commands ("push、reset --hard、clean、branch -D 等"). It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the skill performs essentially one action, so it lacks the breadth of the multi-action anchor-5 example; it is well above the 1-2-actions level of anchor 3.

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' ("设置 Claude Code hooks，在危险 git commands...执行前阻止它们") and 'when' ("适用于用户想...时") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 good-example structure. It is not 4 because the 'when' clause is fully explicit rather than only adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases like "防止破坏性 git 操作", "git safety hooks", and "阻止 git push/reset", which users would plausibly say. A few natural variants (e.g., 'guard', 'protect') are missing, keeping it just below comprehensive coverage at 5 and clearly above the sparse keyword levels of 2-3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (Claude Code PreToolUse hooks for dangerous git commands) with distinct, unlikely-to-collide triggers. It does not fit anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' because the scope is narrowly and uniquely defined.