Conciseness

The body is dense with project-specific knowledge that Claude cannot infer (PRICE_EPSILON = 1e-10 sub-pipette tolerance, the rounding-boundary table, vendor-to-type feed mappings) and explains nothing Claude already knows. Every section earns its tokens, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready Rust throughout: prices_equal/price_gte/price_lte with float_cmp, round_to_tick, validate_tick_alignment, SymbolSpec::round_price/format_price, the dynamic-precision format string, and three ingest functions mapped to real vendors (IB/dxFeed/Rithmic doubles, Binance/Coinbase strings, CME MDP scaled integers). Only a missing `use std::num::ParseFloatError;` keeps it from being flawless, which is too minor to drop a level.

Workflow Clarity

The order-submission flow has an explicit sequence with a validation checkpoint and failure handling ("round to tick, validate alignment (on failure return an error, never re-round), then format"), and the boundary table maps each operation to its rule. It is not 5 because other workflows described (symbol table re-sync on reconnect, feed ingest) lack checkpoints or error-recovery guidance.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the skill is a single ~100-line file with clear, scannable section headers and no content that clearly belongs in a separate reference. This is good structure with appropriately placed content (anchor 4), but at ~100 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold that would let well-organized sections alone score 5.

Specificity

"comparing, rounding, formatting, or parsing prices, or designing price types" lists five concrete actions tied to a specific domain object, matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It falls short of 5 because the description never states what the skill delivers (the f64 price-handling patterns themselves), only the trigger activities.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and concrete ("Load when comparing, rounding, formatting, or parsing prices..."), but the 'what' is only implied by the embedded verbs — the description never states it provides price-handling patterns or guidance. This is above anchor 2 (whose 'when' example is vague, like "Use when working with documents") but below anchor 4, which requires both 'what' and 'when' to be present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "comparing", "rounding", "formatting", and "parsing prices" are terms users would plausibly say when needing this skill. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because common variations a user might say — "tick size", "price precision", "decimal places", "float comparison" — are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"prices" and "price types" carve out a clear trading-domain niche with minimal conflict risk. It is not 5 because the bare verbs "rounding" and "formatting" could overlap with generic number-formatting or decimal-handling skills.