Conciseness

The body is dense with tables, executable code, and brief high-value commentary (e.g., the non-obvious fact that FK and UNIQUE checks bypass RLS), with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimming is possible — some test commentary ("The trade-off: debugging slightly harder", the Test 8 inline explanation) and the somewhat long Test 8/9 snippets could be tightened — so it sits at the score-4 anchor rather than 5.

Actionability

Ten concrete pytest snippets, a role-verification SQL query, and a paste-ready GitHub Actions workflow make the guidance mostly executable. It falls short of score 5 because Tests 4, 8, and 9 depend on undefined helpers (sign_jwt, enqueue_export, run_job, app) and Test 8's source-introspection assertion is closer to a sketch than runnable code.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and well-validated: the planning phase produces concrete committed artifacts, Steps 1–3 build and gate the suite (with SQL verification of the connection role and a merge-blocking CI job), and Step 4 is a full diagnosis feedback loop ending in "Write the minimal regression test before fixing". This matches the score-5 anchor's explicit validation steps and error-recovery loop.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with well-signaled, real references (isolation-models, attack-patterns, framework-skeletons, row-level-security, other-engines) all one link away. It falls short of the score-5 one-level-deep ideal because reference files chain to a second level (row-level-security.md → create-policy-syntax.md, policy-and-bypass-patterns.md, tenant-context-patterns.md; other-engines.md → per-engine files), and only 5 of the 14 bundle files are surfaced directly from SKILL.md, making the rest harder to discover.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "Inventories tenant-bearing surfaces, then tests read-by-ID, list leaks, spoofed tenant IDs, JWT replay, storage IDOR, search, jobs and caches, plus Postgres row-level security" — with comprehensive coverage of the domain. It exceeds the score-4 anchor ('minor gaps in coverage') because no meaningful capability of the skill is left unenumerated.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: an "Use when designing or adding tenant isolation tests..., adding a CI leak gate, or investigating a leak" trigger clause with three concrete scenarios, and a clear statement of what the skill does (inventory surfaces, then run a specific battery of leak tests). This matches the score-5 anchor exactly and is well above score 4's 'when could be more explicit'.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "tenant isolation tests", "multi-tenant app", "CI leak gate", "investigating a leak", "Postgres row-level security" are phrases users would plausibly say. It falls short of the score-5 anchor because common synonyms like "cross-tenant", "data leak", or "tenant separation" are absent, leaving a few natural entry points uncovered.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-tenant isolation-testing niche is clearly staked out with distinct trigger phrases, so it is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. It does not overlap meaningfully with general security-testing or database skills because the scope is pinned to tenant isolation and leak gates.