Conciseness

The body is lean and code-forward with minimal hand-holding, but the User struct is defined three times (domain model, embed example) and the exhaustive-switch-with-default lesson is demonstrated twice (typed Status and string versions). Not 5 because this redundancy could be trimmed; not 3 because the prose is otherwise efficient.

Actionability

Most patterns ship as concrete, near-executable code (functional options, LoadConfig, ProcessStatus, slog usage), but several snippets carry placeholder bodies ('// implementation') and omit imports (time, context, io, fmt). Not 5 because of those gaps; not 3 because the guidance is mostly executable rather than pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The type-first development workflow is a clearly sequenced numbered list (define structs, define signatures, implement, validate at boundaries) with the boundary-validation step acting as a checkpoint. Not 5 because there are no explicit feedback loops or error-recovery guidance for when the compiler-guided process goes wrong; not 3 because the sequence is coherent with most checkpoints present.

Progressive Disclosure

With no bundle files present, the single-file structure is well organized with clear ## and ### sections and no nested references. Not 5 because at ~265 lines the Examples and Configuration sections are substantial enough that they could arguably live in reference files; not 3 because the structure and content placement are good, not merely adequate.

Specificity

Names the domain (Go) and lists several concrete capability areas — 'custom types, interfaces, functional options, and error handling' — with only minor gaps in coverage. Falls short of 5 because 'patterns' and 'type-first development' frame topics somewhat abstractly rather than enumerating comprehensive concrete actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what it does ('Provides Go patterns for type-first development with custom types, interfaces, functional options, and error handling') and when to use it ('Must use when reading or writing Go files'), a concrete trigger phrase matching the top anchor. Not below 5 because the 'when' clause is explicit, not implied.

Trigger Term Quality

'Must use when reading or writing Go files' is a natural phrase users would say, and the topic keywords (interfaces, functional options, error handling) add trigger coverage. Not 5 because common variations like 'golang' or '.go' file references are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Go-specific niche and file-based trigger are mostly distinct, but 'reading or writing Go files' would also fire for any other Go-related skill (e.g., testing or build skills), creating minor overlap risk with closely related skills. Not 3 because the domain is specific rather than broadly overlapping.