Seems good to me. This along with some other areas need to be fleshed out.

It would make more sense for SetGroupPermission to mention what the permission string is called (i.e. adding the handcuff permission to the police group results in group.police.handcuff).

It would make more sense for SetGroupPermission to mention what the permission string is called (i.e. adding the handcuff permission to the police group results in group.police.handcuff).

I personally think some kind of reminder here makes sense as well, because developers might not be looking at SetGroupPermission when they are trying to use hasPermission. Maybe a better format would be to remove the special call-out and add an example codeblock to both functions?

An example would be fine but the callout doesn't really make sense; hasPermission isn't setup for groups, it's for permissions which are currently only set by groups. The note about input requiring group.groupName isn't really accurate since I can very easily add other permissions that wouldn't need that.

I’ve replaced the callout with example code. Could you please review it again? I believe adding example code throughout the documentation would be beneficial, as it helps lower the barrier to entry for the entire framework.