Conciseness

The body is dense and project-specific throughout ("at-spi2-core is D-Bus activated, not bootstrapped by another accessibility launcher") and assumes Claude's competence, explaining no general concepts. It is not a 5 because ownership/cleanup caveats and negative instructions repeat across sections (e.g. artifact-directory and do-not-kill rules appear in Launch, Cleanup, and Helpers) and several multi-clause sentences could be tightened.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: an exact apt-get dependency list, copy-paste invocations of verify-linux.sh with flags, the precise gdbus probe, exact binary paths, and the actual MCP tool sequence in Rust (list_windows, snapshot, click via action_target_args). Not 4 because there are no gaps — commands, arguments, and expected outputs are all specified.

Workflow Clarity

The sections run in execution order (Launch, Doctor, Drive, Evidence, Cleanup) with explicit validation gates — the READY criteria requiring "WEB_HARNESS_MARKER_v1 in both AX and the fixture's read-only event journal", check-evidence.sh gating success after cleanup — plus error-recovery feedback ("A timeout or crash may leave incomplete evidence; inspect the launch log and recorded PIDs before retrying") and a delivery-vs-refusal checklist. Not 4 because validation checkpoints are thorough rather than minor-gapped.

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled and one level deep, but scored against the actual bundle: "Read [the feature map](features/README.md) first" and "See [execution instructions, historical attempts and remaining stand-ins](execution.md)" point to files absent from the bundle (only scripts/verify-linux.sh and scripts/check-evidence.sh exist), so the primary navigation promise is broken and inlined operational detail (per-file evidence listings, platform notes) is not split out. Not 4 because a missing entry-point reference is more than a minor organization gap; not 2 because the body itself is well-sectioned and the script references do resolve.

Specificity

Lists several concrete capabilities — "Verify the Cua Driver daemon and CLI/MCP desktop tools against real fixture apps" qualified by "Linux diagnostics, AX-first actions, side-effect checks, and retained evidence" — but all hang off a single verb with minor coverage gaps (no mention of launch/preflight/cleanup phases or X11/Wayland lanes). Not 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are named; not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive.

Completeness

Answers both: what ("Verify the Cua Driver daemon and CLI/MCP desktop tools against real fixture apps") and when ("after driver changes"), so it avoids the missing-when cap of 3. The when clause is explicit but thin — a single qualifier rather than a fuller "Use when…" trigger phrase with concrete contexts, so it is not a 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords for the intended user — "Cua Driver", "daemon", "CLI/MCP desktop tools", "driver changes" — phrased in third person. A few natural terms are missing, e.g. "e2e", "regression", "end-to-end", "test", so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of a 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Cua Driver daemon" and "CLI/MCP desktop tools" with "real fixture apps" define a clear niche with distinct triggers; no other plausible skill would fire on these terms. Not 4 because there is no meaningful overlap risk with closely related skills.