Conciseness

The body is efficient — compact tables, terse key points ('SilenceUsage: true MUST be set'), and detail delegated to asset files rather than inlined — matching anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation'). It is not 5 because some content assumes too little Claude knowledge, e.g., the exit-code table explaining standard Unix codes (0 Success, 127 Command not found) and the 'Persistent vs Local' flags concept explanation, and not 3 because padding is minor rather than a pattern.

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: exact APIs ('MarkFlagRequired', 'MarkFlagsMutuallyExclusive', 'signal.NotifyContext', 'cmd.OutOrStdout()', 'viper.BindPFlag'), a validator table, and per-topic pointers to real, executable asset files (verified: root.go, exit_codes.go contain complete working Go), matching anchor 4. It is not 5 because the body itself carries almost no copy-paste code — execution depends on opening referenced files — and exit_codes.go's 'github.com/you/myapp/cmd' import is inconsistent with the documented cmd/myapp layout, a minor gap.

Workflow Clarity

The Modes section gives clear sequences ('Build — ... follow the project structure, root command setup, flag binding, and version embedding sections sequentially'; 'Review — check the Common Mistakes table, verify SilenceUsage/SilenceErrors...'), and the Testing CLI Commands section plus Common Mistakes table supply validation checkpoints — anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'). It is not 5 because the Build workflow never explicitly wires in a test/verify step or error-recovery loop, and not 3 because sequences and checkpoints are present, not merely implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean overview where every topic section signals a one-level-deep reference — e.g., 'See [assets/examples/flags.go](assets/examples/flags.go) for all flag patterns' — and all 12 referenced asset files exist in assets/examples/ with substantive content, while appropriately compact tables (Quick Reference, Common Mistakes) stay inline. This matches anchor 5 ('clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation').

Specificity

Quotes like 'building, modifying, or reviewing a Go CLI tool — especially for command structure, flag handling, configuration layering, version embedding, exit codes, I/O patterns, signal handling, shell completion, argument validation, and CLI unit testing' enumerate ten concrete concern areas, matching anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps'). It is not 5 because the action verbs themselves (building, modifying, reviewing) are generic compared to anchor 5's concrete action list, and not 3 because coverage goes well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

'Golang CLI application development' explicitly states the what, and 'Use when building, modifying, or reviewing a Go CLI tool' plus 'Also triggers when code uses cobra, viper, or urfave/cli' give explicit, concrete when-triggers — a clear anchor 5 match. Neighboring anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

'Go CLI tool', 'cobra', 'viper', 'urfave/cli', 'flag handling', 'shell completion', 'exit codes', 'argument validation' give good keyword coverage, and 'Also triggers when code uses cobra, viper, or urfave/cli' captures library-based triggers, matching anchor 4. It is not 5 because common natural variations like 'command line', 'subcommand', or 'CLI app' phrasings are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear Go CLI niche with distinct triggers (cobra, viper, urfave/cli, CLI-specific concerns) and proactively reduces overlap by delegating: 'For cobra-specific APIs → See samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-spf13-cobra skill; for viper configuration layering → See samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-spf13-viper skill.' This matches anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk).