Conciseness

The body is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, matching 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed'. Not 5 because the tautological "Do not use this skill when — The task is unrelated to go concurrency patterns" and template bullets like "Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs" are tokens that earn no place; not 3 because there is no padded explanation or verbosity to remove.

Actionability

The Instructions are pure abstraction — "Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs", "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes", "Provide actionable steps and verification" — with no code, commands, or concrete Go patterns, matching the anchor 'entirely vague or abstract; no concrete code or commands'. Not 2 because not even high-level task-specific hints exist: the sole concrete pointer, `resources/implementation-playbook.md`, references a file that does not exist in the bundle.

Workflow Clarity

The instruction bullets imply only a rough generic sequence (clarify → apply best practices → validate outcomes), akin to the anchor example '1. Open the document 2. Make changes 3. Save and close' — sequence present but many gaps, no concrete steps or checkpoints. Not 3 because there is no real sequence or checkpoint for actual concurrency work (e.g., no 'go test -race' verification); not 1 because a rough ordering and an abstract validation mention ("validate outcomes") are present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is structured around one clearly signaled reference — a Resources section pointing to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` — but that file does not exist in the bundle (no resources/, references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), so scored against the actual bundle structure the single reference is dangling and the overview leads nowhere. Not 3 because the broken reference means navigation to the detailed content fails entirely and the body itself carries no substantive fallback content; not 1 because sections are well organized and the reference is one level deep and clearly signaled rather than nested or buried.

Specificity

Enumerates several specific items — "goroutines, channels, sync primitives, and context" plus "implementing worker pools, or debugging race conditions" — matching the anchor 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'. Not 5 because "Master Go concurrency" is a topic-level claim rather than a comprehensive set of concrete actions (e.g., no graceful shutdown, pipelines, or goroutine-leak handling); not 3 because well more than 1-2 concrete actions are named.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit with concrete trigger phrases: what — "Master Go concurrency with goroutines, channels, sync primitives, and context"; when — "Use when building concurrent Go applications, implementing worker pools, or debugging race conditions". This matches the anchor 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'. Not 4 because the when clause is already explicit and specific, not merely adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a Go developer would say are present: "concurrent Go applications", "worker pools", "race conditions", "goroutines", "channels". Not 5 because common synonyms/variations are missing ("parallelism", "deadlock", "race detector", "goroutine leak", "WaitGroup"); not 3 because coverage is good and domain-natural, not merely 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Go concurrency" is a clear niche with distinct, language-specific triggers (goroutines, channels, worker pools, race conditions), so conflict with other skills is minimal — matches the anchor 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'. Not 4 because the triggers are unlikely to fire for non-Go or non-concurrency skills, leaving only minor overlap risk at most.