Conciseness

The body is dominated by lean, copy-paste curl commands with no hand-holding, assuming Claude's competence (e.g. the setup block is three lines plus a fallback instruction). Not 5 because content is duplicated: each capability is described verbatim both in the '## Capabilities' list and again as the intro sentence of its '## Usage' subsection, and line 23 repeats the description; not 3 because the padding is minor trimming, not unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

Every endpoint gets a complete, executable curl command with auth headers, content type, and a concrete example payload — copy-paste ready for the seven core endpoints. Not 5 because the '## Discover More' block is malformed as written: the first curl ends with trailing text "' List all endpoints" after the JSON argument (which would break execution if pasted) and an inline '#' comment placed after the payload line; this is exactly 'minor gaps' rather than 'vague guidance'.

Workflow Clarity

The setup sequence is explicit with a validation/fallback checkpoint ('If ~/.gooseworks/credentials.json does not exist, tell the user to run: npx gooseworks login'), and each endpoint's usage is unambiguous with parameters marked as required. Not 5 because there are no checkpoints for interpreting responses — e.g. what to do with 'accept_all' or 'unknown' verifier statuses, or handling curl errors — leaving minor validation gaps; not 3 because the sequence that exists (setup → auth → call) is clear and includes an explicit error path.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned (Setup, Capabilities, Usage, Use Cases, Discover More) and pushes full endpoint details behind the search/details API calls rather than inlining complete reference documentation — a genuine progressive-disclosure mechanism. Not 5 because the ~180-line inline endpoint reference could itself be split into a references file (there are no bundle files at all), and the 'Discover More' references are only mildly signaled; not 3 because organization is clean and navigation is easy.

Specificity

"find emails, verify deliverability, discover companies" lists three specific concrete actions in a named domain (email intelligence), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' anchor. Not 5 because enrichment, email counting, and domain search capabilities are omitted; not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (find, verify, discover) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than just weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

"Email finder and verifier", "find emails", "verify deliverability" are natural phrases users would say, giving good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common synonyms and variations like "email lookup", "check if an email is valid", "contact lookup", or "bounces" are missing; not 3 because coverage exceeds 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Email finding/verification is a clear niche with distinct triggers ('email finder', 'verifier'), though 'discover companies' is broad enough to overlap with general lead-generation or company-research skills — fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. Not 5 because of that company-discovery breadth; not 3 because the core email triggers are unmistakable.