Conciseness

The body is lean with zero concept-explanation padding and every section carries instructions, but a few passages could be trimmed, e.g. the exhaustive 'Never execute, sign, approve, broadcast, deploy, configure, fund, register, activate, pause, update, submit, verify onchain, or change blockchain state' verb list and the tangled handoff sentence 'stop applying all remaining instructions here before preflight, including this domain's concepts, references, templates, fields, and preflight, even as "not applicable" labels'. Not 5 because of these minor over-written stretches; not 3 because there is no unnecessary explanation of things Claude already knows.

Actionability

For an instruction-only routing/policy skill the guidance is concrete: exact fetch URLs ('https://docs.chain.link/data-streams/llms.txt', llms-full.txt, page '.md' URLs), a copy-paste preflight template, specific commands ('npm install @chainlink/contracts', 'Accept: text/markdown'), and named invariant fields ('full_report', 'observationsTimestamp'/'validFromTimestamp'). Not 5 because executable code examples are delegated entirely to the references and a few directives (e.g. 'single-flight concurrent identical upstream requests') assume reference lookup for implementation.

Workflow Clarity

The Freshness Policy is a numbered 8-step sequence with explicit fallback and error-recovery checkpoints ('Use Context7 only when the .md fetch fails, the page is empty...'; 'Stop when the page answers. Fetch at most three pages.'), and the preflight template gates risky onchain writes with a review checklist, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. Not 5 because the handoff/boundary paragraphs interleave several rules in dense prose, leaving the ordering of some steps implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview: a request-class routing table maps to all 8 reference files, each of which exists on disk, and grep confirms no reference file points to another .md, so references are exactly one level deep. Content is appropriately split (details live in references) and each table row is labeled and signaled.

Specificity

'retrieve Chainlink Data Streams reports over REST and WebSocket, including report schemas' names the domain plus several concrete actions, but the second half ('It also applies to credentials, report decoding, official Go, Rust, and TypeScript SDKs, high-availability streaming, on-chain report verification, and timestamp lookback') is a topical noun list rather than action statements. Not 5 because coverage is comprehensive yet the tail is enumeration not actions; not 3 because multiple specific concrete actions are explicitly stated.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and concrete, and explicit trigger guidance exists via 'It also applies to credentials, report decoding... on-chain report verification, and timestamp lookback' plus the exclusion rule 'A price-feed consumer that uses AggregatorV3Interface or latestRoundData goes to chainlink-data-feeds-skill', so it is not capped at 3. Not 5 because there is no direct 'Use when...' phrasing and the 'when' is expressed indirectly as routing/exclusion.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage users would actually say: 'Chainlink Data Streams', 'REST', 'WebSocket', 'reports', 'report schemas', 'credentials', 'Go, Rust, and TypeScript SDKs', 'timestamp lookback', plus routing terms 'AggregatorV3Interface', 'latestRoundData', and 'price-feed'. Not 5 because common variations like 'latest price', 'real-time market data', or 'data streams API' phrasings are absent from the description (they appear only in the body).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (Data Streams report retrieval) with explicit disambiguation from the closest sibling: 'A price-feed consumer that uses AggregatorV3Interface or latestRoundData goes to chainlink-data-feeds-skill. Reports, REST, WebSocket, and report schemas stay here.' Distinct triggers make wrong-skill activation unlikely.