Conciseness

Nearly every line is product-specific knowledge rather than concepts Claude already knows, but the ~475-line body repeats itself noticeably: the one-EmbedFilterGroup-per-org limit appears in four sections, the dashboard-filter-is-insecure warning in five, and the "Important Facts" section is a recap of facts already stated. It also presents three overlapping decision aids (ASCII comparison, table, decision tree) for the same choice. This is "could be tightened" territory, not the minor trim of a 4.

Actionability

Every pattern ships complete, copy-paste-ready `client.create`/`client.associate` examples with exact property names (`parameter_overrides`, `account_overrides`, `tenant`, `tenant_fields_rights`, `sticky: true`), plus exact developer.luzmo.com doc URLs and wrong/right code pairs in Common Mistakes. The common cases (shared-table filtering, single-tenant sources, custom fields, sticky schedules) are all covered; the few fragments (plugin overrides, mistake fixes) are supplementary to full examples elsewhere.

Workflow Clarity

Pattern selection is well sequenced (decision tree, one-off vs per-token steps for Pattern 1), but there is no validation checkpoint anywhere: no step verifies that an issued token actually cannot see another tenant's rows or that overrides took effect. For a skill whose own header says misconfiguration "is a security breach, not a bug", implicit checkpoints are a real gap — sequence present, checkpoints missing, matching the 3 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so all guidance — including a ~130-line Common Mistakes catalog and full per-pattern deep dives — is inlined in a single 475-line entry file. Internal section structure is good and external doc links are clearly signaled (deferring specs to developer.luzmo.com is the right instinct), but content that naturally belongs in separate reference files (per-pattern details, the mistakes catalog) is inline, which is the 3 anchor, not the well-split 4.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete capabilities — "Covers three isolation patterns with tradeoffs, plus custom fields per tenant (explicit `tenant`, `tenant_fields_rights`) and sticky overrides for scheduled exports and alerts" — with real API field names. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the three patterns are counted but never named, leaving a minor gap in coverage.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the "what" ("Multi-tenant data isolation... Covers three isolation patterns... custom fields per tenant... sticky overrides") and the "when" ("Use whenever each user or customer must see only their own data. Triggers on: ...") with concrete trigger phrases. Not below 5 because neither trigger guidance nor capability coverage is weak or implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger coverage is comprehensive and natural: "row-level security, tenant isolation, \"users see each other's data\", \"data leak\", per-customer filtering" plus the plain-language "Use whenever each user or customer must see only their own data". It includes symptom phrases a user would actually say, not just technical jargon; nothing significant is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (tenant data isolation for SaaS/embedded analytics) with distinct triggers, and the closing "Pair with core for token generation and data-integration for connection-level overrides" actively disambiguates against sibling skills. Conflict risk is minimal.