CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

risk-judgment

Use this skill for objectively evaluating bull vs bear arguments, weighing evidence quality, and providing balanced risk assessments for trading decisions.

61

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/tentacles/Trading/Mode/ai_trading_mode/resources/skills/risk_judge/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, actionable evaluative framework with a concrete scoring formula and worked output example. Its main weakness is conciseness, due to generic best-practice aphorisms and some definitional commentary Claude already knows.

Suggestions

Trim or remove the 'Best Practices' section — items like 'Stay impartial' and 'Favor simplicity' are generic aphorisms Claude already knows and add no skill-specific value.

Operationalize the scoring formula by specifying how to rate Evidence_Quality, Argument_Logic, and Historical_Support (e.g., a 0-1 rubric for each) so the computed Bull/Bear scores are reproducible rather than undefined.

Condense the market-regime commentary to decision-relevant rules only, dropping explanatory framing about what trending/ranging/volatile markets 'are.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and well-structured, but includes unnecessary explanation Claude already knows — generic 'Best Practices' aphorisms ('Stay impartial,' 'Favor simplicity') and definitional market-regime commentary — fitting 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation.'

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides a concrete scoring formula, position-size modifiers, and a full worked JSON output example, but the formula inputs (Evidence_Quality, Argument_Logic, Historical_Support) are not operationalized on a numeric scale, leaving a minor gap.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step numbered sequence (evidence → argument → weighing → regime → risk) with a defined output format; no validation checkpoints, but none are required for an evaluative, non-destructive task.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized single-file structure with a clear overview and logical sections; no bundle files exist and none are needed, but the monolithic body has no progressive layering to reach a 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A clear, third-person description that names concrete actions and includes an explicit trigger clause, with good but not comprehensive keyword and action coverage. It is distinguishable and complete enough to guide invocation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names three concrete actions ('evaluating bull vs bear arguments,' 'weighing evidence quality,' 'providing balanced risk assessments') but omits others like confidence scoring and position sizing, fitting the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

Provides a clear 'what' (evaluate, weigh, provide assessments) and an explicit 'Use this skill for ... for trading decisions' trigger, but the 'when' is general rather than enumerating concrete trigger phrases, so it is not a 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trader terms ('bull vs bear,' 'risk assessments,' 'trading decisions') but misses common synonyms like 'bull case/bear case,' 'long/short,' or 'market sentiment,' fitting 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing.'

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The bull-vs-bear evidence-weighing niche is clearly distinguishable from generic trading skills, with only minor overlap risk against general analysis/risk skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk.'

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
Drakkar-Software/OctoBot
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.